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

Re: OGG container

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:01:23 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=MKzTvNeZN0q4_9DVbQ4qr8djB4wovMAwYdQir@mail.gmail.com>
To: tmichel@w3.org
Cc: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote:

>
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/ontology10/CR/test.php?table=containerOGG
>
> Le 21/09/2010 16:00, Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit :
>
>  Hi Thierry,
>>
>> I saw the two sections and my reply was indeed targeted at the container
>> format section. As I said: skeleton should be regarded as part of the
>> container format and because Skeleton includes metadata, it should be
>> counted (see
>>
>> http://github.com/cpearce/OggIndex/blob/master/Skeleton-4.0-Index-Specification.txt
>> ).
>> My point was that all of the information you are after is already included
>> in the previous table everywhere where it says "skeleton".
>>
>
>
> I guess in this previous metadata table, all these information which are
> now redondant with the OGG container table, should be removed.
>
> OGG container table:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/ontology10/CR/test.php?table=containerOGG
>


Well, no, not really. Because as soon as the container has audio-visual data
in it, it ticks a lot more boxes on your list. If you remove that table, how
will people be able to find out about those feature mappings?

Regards,
Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2010 00:02:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 22 September 2010 00:02:21 GMT