W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > August 2011

Fwd: Re: AW: XMP and OMR doc

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:51:31 +0200
Message-ID: <4E381D03.9080003@w3.org>
To: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message resent to MAWG List for archives ;-)

-------- Message original --------
Sujet: Re: AW: XMP and OMR doc
Date : Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:39:29 +0200
De : Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Pour : Bailer, Werner <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
Copie à : Véronique Malaisé <vmalaise@gmail.com>,  Felix Sasaki 
<felix.sasaki@dfki.de>, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>

OK, Werner!

For info I've just spotted that xmpRights:UsageTerms and 
xmpRights:webStatement are in the XMP Spec. But in part 1, not in part 
2. Puzzling...

Antoine


> Dear Antoine,
>
> thanks for spotting this.
>
> As far as I know, Felix will be working on a revision of the XMP examples later this months, so I think these issues can be considered then.
>
> Best regards,
> Werner
>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 02. August 2011 16:26
>> An: Véronique Malaisé; Felix Sasaki; Bailer, Werner
>> Betreff: XMP and OMR doc
>>
>> Dear Véronique, Felix, Werner,
>>
>> The story is too long to tell, but I happen to be right now looking at
>> the Ontology for Media Resources 1.0 and the latest XMP doc
>> (http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/xmp/pdfs/XMPSpecifica
>> tionPart2.pdf). And there might be some discrepancies.
>>
>> For ex I read in the latter: xmpDM:copyright is Deprecated in favour of
>> dc:rights. I don't find it in http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-10/#xmp-
>> table, but it's before in the doc.
>> More important, xmpRights:UsageTerms seems to have disappeared from
>> And xmpRights:webStatement is now xmpDM:webStatement in some part of
>> the XMP doc, but xmpRights:webStatement in others. In fact it is very
>> unclear to me what the correct thing is (except that xmpRights: is not
>> formally defined in the doc, as a self-standing namespace).
>>
>> Maybe that's the kind of thing you'd want to fix, if you have not
>> spotted it already. As I unfortunately don't have time and will to mess
>> with a formal comment procedure, I let you judge. Of course I've
>> nothing against forwarding this mail to anyone, if it's relevant!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Antoine
>
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 15:51:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 August 2011 15:51:49 GMT