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

Re: updates of the Ontology for REC version.

From: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@dfki.de>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:53:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CAL58czruVwH-8wVMDhRb0-5h9YYE2Sb_BeOhMA5mEvySoW+VqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: tmichel@w3.org
Cc: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
2011/12/30 Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>

>
>
> Le 30/12/2011 13:58, Felix Sasaki a écrit :
>
>> 2011/12/30 Thierry MICHEL<tmichel@w3.org>
>>
>>  During the current AC Rep review of the Ontology spec , a company
>>> requested the following updates before going to REC.
>>>
>>> We should address these two items:
>>>
>>> 1. Updating the Exif ontology reference to the Exif 2.3 release.
>>>
>>> 2. Reviewing the new CIPA Exif Draft "Exif 2.3 metadata for XMP",
>>> http://www.cipa.jp/english/****hyoujunka/kikaku/cipa_e_****kikaku.html<http://www.cipa.jp/english/**hyoujunka/kikaku/cipa_e_**kikaku.html>
>>> <http://www.cipa.**jp/english/hyoujunka/kikaku/**cipa_e_kikaku.html<http://www.cipa.jp/english/hyoujunka/kikaku/cipa_e_kikaku.html>>which
>>> assigns XMP properties to each of the Exif properties, and validate
>>>
>>> that the W3C MAWG ontology is consistent with this work.
>>>
>>>
>> I did a short analysis of
>> http://www.cipa.jp/english/**hyoujunka/kikaku/pdf/DC-X010_**E.pdf<http://www.cipa.jp/english/hyoujunka/kikaku/pdf/DC-X010_E.pdf>
>> I don't see any inconsistencies between the "Exif 2.3 metadata for XMP"
>> mappings and the MAWG mappings. The latter are more general in some cases,
>> e.g. date / time related values in XMP are mapped to "ISO date format" in
>> MAWG http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-**10/#xmp-table<http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-10/#xmp-table>
>> but this is no inconsistency, just a generalization.
>>
>
>
> Thanks for your review.
> This is good news. If I understand correctly, for the "Exif 2.3 metadata
> for XMP", this has no particular impact on our Ontology spec or our
> Ontology testsuite ? Any updates needed ? any new reference ?
>

If the reviewer asks for it, we can have an informative reference to "Exif
2.3 metadata for XMP", stating the above review. But this is not needed.
The same for the ontology test suite.


>
>
> For the second issue, does Updating the Exif ontology reference to the
> Exif 2.3 release has an impact on the exif mapping table or the test suite
> exif example ?
>

I don't know. I did not check the relation between Exif 2.2 and 2.3.

Felix


>
> Best,
>
> Thierry.
>
>
Received on Friday, 30 December 2011 18:53:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 30 December 2011 18:53:58 GMT