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

Re: RE : ma-ont RDF latest version

From: Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:30:04 +0200
Cc: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4958FC5C-4CBA-4191-B8E5-08A89EB099A1@few.vu.nl>
To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
Hi Jean-Pierre, Davy,

I also agree "to have media fragment as a subclass of media resource".  
quoted from below :) It makes sense in my opinion, and it's even  
better in terms of representations. Anyone against this opinion? I  
might have missed considerations as for why not to agree with this  


On Oct 14, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:

> Hi Davy,
> Thank for summarsing the semantics, that will help me answering the  
> question... (I hope :-)
> [[ 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).]]
> This is effectively the key question and I would inviote the whole  
> MAWG to consider this question.
> My first intention would have been to have media fragment as a  
> subclass of media resource composed of audio and video tracks. If we  
> all adopt and recognise more specifically that a fragment is a media  
> resource which is iodentified by a MFURI I am happy with this but  
> the group needs to confirm what the mediaFragment is. Then we could  
> name (namedFragment, itself a subclass of fragment) and keyword a  
> fragment and give him a URI. That would be 'clean'.
> Then  if the question arises of whether a media fragment is a  
> subclass of media resource, I would answer that any media resource  
> is an atomic media fragment.
> In other words, I personally can agree with what you suggest but  
> would like to hear from the group.
> Tobias and team, what do you think?
> Best regards,
> Jean-Pierre
> -----------------------------------------
> **************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it
> are confidential and intended solely for the
> use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed.
> If you have received this email in error,
> please notify the system manager.
> This footnote also confirms that this email
> message has been swept by the mailgateway
> **************************************************
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 13:31:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:39 UTC