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

Re: Decision needed before exit LC

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 11:43:09 +1000
Message-ID: <BANLkTimR2eBs3M6wBomQV4+ifaHCn-TiuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>
Cc: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
2011/5/17 Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>:
> Dear all,
> Next week we want to vote on moving the Ontology doc to CR. For this reason we need to decide upon the following:
> 1) Relaxing ma:relation, Protagonist: Martin Höffernig
> Decide whether to:
>        i) Relax the constraint on ma:isRelatedTo, not restricted only to media resources.
>        or
>        ii) use rdfs:seeAlso to link associated documents
> 2)  Should we change all datatypes for literal and provide definitions for the formats: according to Jean Pierre ?
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011May/0032.html
> 3) Binary metadata formats, Protagonist: Silvia
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011May/0075.html )
> i)      for OGG example, she can't provide *all* the properties mapping to the properties core set

Not in an example Ogg file.

> ii)     The format been binary formats she can't create an RDF file.

No, that's not what I said. I said I can create it but it's not of
much use. If you only want to use it as a data description format, I
can throw it together in a dash. It just won't be able to be used for
parsing any real-world data.

> This conflicts with our exit criteria. Should we change those or is Sylvia missing something ?

Indeed: am I missing something?

Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 01:43:56 UTC

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