W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > October 2010

RE: ma-ont RDF latest version

From: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:09:21 +0200
To: "'Evain, Jean-Pierre'" <evain@ebu.ch>
Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <010c01cb6b6e$b9e135b0$2da3a110$@ugent.be>
Jean-Pierre,

> We had a similar discussion with Tobias. Tobias convince not ot have fragment as a subclass of mediaResource (I know not exactly
your
> point yet) but I found a reason to accept it...
> 
> If I ask myself is a videoTrack or an audioTrack a media Resource, I believe it is true as they vould be played independently and
> correspond to an audio / video instance and this is why I don't have a problem with having them as subclasses of mediaResource.
> 
> On the other hand a mediaFragment (for me) is not a fragment in the sens e.g. segment but it is a URI pointing to such a fragment
or
> sequence. This is different from being an audio track or video track. For me these are in essence different and I would have
difficulties
> putting the tracks as subclasses of mediaFragment.
> 
> But this maybe first a semantic issue needing clarification before a decision is made.

I think the key question here is indeed: do we model a media fragment as a media resource (i.e., is media fragment subclass of media
resource or not). Therefore, we should first look at the definition of a media resource [1] and I believe that a media fragment
falls under that definition (if not, please clarify why not):
" A media resource is any physical or logical Resource that can be identified using a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), as defined
by [RFC 3986]) , which has or is related to one or more media content types.". More specifically, a media fragment is a physical
resource, with a media content type (i.e., the same as its parent resource) and can be identified using a URI (i.e., a Media
Fragments URI).

Also, with the current ontology, it seems that we cannot use the Media Annotation properties for media fragments (e.g., we cannot
use keyword, genre, ... for a media fragment since their domain is media resource). This makes the ontology unusable when we want to
annotate media fragments. So I believe making media fragment subclass of media resource would resolve these problems (also the issue
with the tracks would be resolved).

Best regards,

Davy

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-10/#media-resource 

-- 
Davy Van Deursen

Ghent University - IBBT
Department of Electronics and Information Systems - Multimedia Lab
URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be/dvdeurse
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 07:09:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 14 October 2010 07:09:50 GMT