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

RE : RE : change proposal in the ontology and API document (ACTION-412)

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 13:39:29 +0200
To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010F5A1BC38B@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
An example for the second point:

frameRate could have MediaResource as a domain instead of videoTrack.  That would allow defning the framerate of the media resource without having to have a blank node for an undefined videotrack.

It seems that e.g. most part of track related object properties already directly point ot the mediaResource.

De : Pierre-Antoine Champin [pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr]
Date d'envoi : lundi, 9. mai 2011 09:50
 : Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc : public-media-annotation@w3.org
Objet : Re: RE : change proposal in the ontology and API document (ACTION-412)

On 05/07/2011 12:53 PM, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:
> Dear all,
> considering all the recent discussions, why don't we just change all datatypes for literal and provide definitions for the formats. We did it for string and dateTime already.

In the case of datatype, unspecifying is really a necessary evil, IMHO.
The case of dates was sufficiently compelling to convince me to do it,
but I didn't do it gladly.

Unless a real practical problem arises with other datatype properties,
I'm not in favor of underspecify them.

> Something else about the RDF, although I did it, I wonder if:
> - Should we remove restrictions on certain properties e.g. valid on image and not audio, etc.

We did that some time ago, IIRC, because it required owl:unionOf, which
was breaking compliance with simple OWL2 profiles.

> - Should we state all these properties at the higher level. mediaResource and sub-classes will inherit them but if these classes are not duly identified, it would allow declaring properties without unnecessary blank nodes and the associated management of dummy identifiers

sorry, I don't understand that. Can you give an example?

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
Received on Monday, 9 May 2011 11:40:03 UTC

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