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

Re: Metadata formats examples must be valid

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:16:11 +1000
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=FHazdwgvQ1yNkcpsfSXmiyDJYOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: tmichel@w3.org
Cc: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Thierry,

You didn't provide your links for [1] and [2]. And you didn't list the
documents that are invalid.

Can you please provide additional information so we know what has to be changed?

Alternatively, it's of course completely ok for you to make those
changes yourself in the spirit of keeping the various contributions in
sync.

Cheers,
Silvia.


On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thank you for your imput for the Testsuite for the Ontology for Media
> Resources 1.0
>
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/ontology10/testsuite.html
>
> I have been looking at the metadata formats examples associated with the
> associated RDF/OWL file for correspondence with the core properties.
>
> Here are my remarks:
>
> 1- For some examples, the XML file does not validate against the XML
> validation (well formed document)[1].
> --> XML documents MUST be well formed.
>
> 2- Most of the RDF files do not validate against the RDF validator [2]
> --> RDF documents MUST be valid
>
> 3- For some RDF file the URL of the corresponding example file are wrong:
> <rdf:Description rdf:about= ....
> or
> xml:base="...
> etc.
>
> --> Please make sure the corresponding URL are right.
>
>
> Please review your contribution and make sure the 3 above requirements are
> fulfilled.
>
> We will be looking at these files during the next MAWG F2F in ERCIM/Sophia.
> Therefore please provide valid documents before this event 28/29 june.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Thierry.
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 01:16:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:42 UTC