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

RE: ma-ont RDF latest version

From: Bailer, Werner <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 08:22:33 +0200
To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>, Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>
CC: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD9846F872C7874BB4E0FDF2A61EF09F965A33549C@RZJC1EX.jr1.local>
Dear Jean-Pierre,

I remember we had a discussion about namedFragment at last F2F. Raphael commented that MAWG still makes a distinction here although MFWG has meanwhile treats them the same. 

I think we have not made a resolution, as we were (are) waiting for Raphael to send LC comments on behalf of MFWG.

Best regards,
Werner

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evain, Jean-Pierre [mailto:evain@ebu.ch]
> Sent: Freitag, 15. Oktober 2010 02:10
> To: Tobias Bürger; Bailer, Werner
> Cc: Davy Van Deursen; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: RE : ma-ont RDF latest version
> 
> Thanks Tobias, all,
> 
> There seem to be concensus. I'll work on a new version.
> 
> I was thinking about namedFragment. Although the MFWG makes this
> disctinction, I wonder if we need to in MAWG as we would have a
> property 'name' that be be documented or not.  Then the URI attributed
> to the fragment would use an MFWG format or another, accordingly.
> 
> I hope I'll find 5 minutes to do this today during my various meetings.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jean-Pierre
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> De : Tobias Bürger [tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at]
> Date d'envoi : jeudi, 14. octobre 2010 18:20
> À : Bailer, Werner
> Cc : Evain, Jean-Pierre; Davy Van Deursen; public-media-
> annotation@w3.org
> Objet : Re: ma-ont RDF latest version
> 
>   Dear all,
> 
> given the definition of MF cited below, it makes sense to model MF like
> that.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Tobias
> 
> Am 14.10.2010 15:34, schrieb Bailer, Werner:
> > Dear Davy, Jean-Pierre, all,
> >
> > I agree with the proposal that a media fragment is a subclass of
> media resource.
> >
> > Actually, this a clean way of modeling it, as we anyway couldn't
> prevent someone from expressing that by using a MFURI as the URI of a
> media resource.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Werner
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
> >> annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Evain, Jean-Pierre
> >> Sent: Donnerstag, 14. Oktober 2010 15:25
> >> To: Davy Van Deursen
> >> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> >> Subject: RE : ma-ont RDF latest version
> >>
> >> 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
> >> **************************************************
> >>
> >
> 
> --
> ================================================================
> Dr. Tobias Bürger         Knowledge and Media Technologies Group
> Salzburg Research                           FON +43.662.2288-415
> Forschungsgesellschaft                      FAX +43.662.2288-222
> Jakob-Haringer-Straße 5/III   tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at
> A-5020 Salzburg | AUSTRIA         http://www.salzburgresearch.at
Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 06:23:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 October 2010 06:23:36 GMT