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

exclusion of METS and MediaRDF

From: Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 12:17:39 +0200
To: "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>, "tobias@tobiasbuerger.com" <tobias@tobiasbuerger.com>
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <376A32D52DCEC845B630D7183D2271C214839008CA@ESESSCMS0355.eemea.ericsson.se>
If nobody opposes, we will remove METS and MediaRDF from the Ontology Specification!


From: Bailer, Werner [mailto:werner.bailer@joanneum.at]
Sent: den 17 maj 2011 18:33
To: tobias@tobiasbuerger.com; Joakim Söderberg
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: RE: Decision needed before exit LC

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No strong opinion on MediaRDF, but if it seems outdated and unsupported, we shouldn't support it (unability to come up with a working example means excluding formats according to our CR criteria).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,

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to make a MediaRDF example file but realized that the link pointing to the spec from the Media Resource document is no longer valid.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,

2011/5/17 Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com<mailto: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.
       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 ?

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 ?


Dr. Tobias Bürger
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2011 10:18:06 UTC

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