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

Re: Decision needed before exit LC

From: Tobias Bürger <tobias@tobiasbuerger.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 08:11:53 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTinEa89aiWjgOS+3KVNY7dfN52Vznw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
Cc: Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hi Werner,

thanks for your opinion.

I would vote for the same and would descope both METS and MediaRDF.

Best regards,

Tobias

2011/5/17 Bailer, Werner <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>

> Hi Tobias,
>
>
>
> As METS serves rather as a container for other metadata than a metadata
> format itself, I’m for considering it out of scope (similar to the case that
> MPEG-21 can hold MPEG-7 metadata).
>
>
>
> No strong opinion on MediaRDF, but if it seems outdated and unsupported, we
> shouldn’t support it (unability to come up with a working example means
> excluding formats according to our CR criteria).
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Werner
>
>
>
> *From:* public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:
> public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Tobias Bürger
> *Sent:* Dienstag, 17. Mai 2011 18:25
> *To:* Joakim Söderberg
> *Cc:* public-media-annotation@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Decision needed before exit LC
>
>
>
> Hi Joakim,
>
> I would like to have opinions on two further issues by the group, maybe we
> can put them on your list:
>
> (1) Descoping of METS?
>
> -> Background: I wanted to make a METS RDF example filel, but realized that
> the overlap to our Media Resource ontology is actually very minor; in fact
> only the descriptive elements overlap. Therfore I asked myself if it makes
> sense to keep the METS mapping in our spec?
>
> (2) How to treat Media RDF?
>
> -> Background: I also wanted to make a MediaRDF example file but realized
> that the link pointing to the spec from the Media Resource document is no
> longer valid. Moreover you can not find any further source of information
> about the MediaRDF vocabulary on the Web. It seems that the vocabulary is no
> longer available /supported. Therefore I am not sure how we should treat it?
>
> Thank you & best regards,
>
> Tobias
>
> 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
>
> ii)     The format been binary formats she can't create an RDF file.
>
> This conflicts with our exit criteria. Should we change those or is Sylvia
> missing something ?
>
>
> Regards
> /Joakim
>
>
>
>
> --
> ___________________________________
> Dr. Tobias Bürger
> http://www.tobiasbuerger.com
>



-- 
___________________________________
Dr. Tobias Bürger
http://www.tobiasbuerger.com
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 06:14:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 May 2011 06:14:56 GMT