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

Re: [Reminder] editors of the Metadata examples to send their files

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 23:04:02 +1000
Message-ID: <BANLkTinTW3-GL6AcO=dMcKxHSvk5zWWpLA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Cc: "tmichel@w3.org" <tmichel@w3.org>, Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin
<pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> On 05/16/2011 03:34 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> Hi Thierry,
>> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Sylvia
>>> Providing an RDF file was decided back at the MAWG F2F in Lyon.
>>> And it is mentioned in our exit Criteria for CR.
>>> Therefore if providing an RDF file is not possible for OGG we should etheir
>>> change our exit criterie, else formats not providing an RDF would be removed
>>> from the spec.
>> It is possible. I can throw an RDF together to list all the fields
>> available. I just don't think it makes much sense for metadata that is
>> encapsulated in a binary file. And this includes other formats such as
>> QuickTime, too.
> Silvia,
> the purpose of the RDF file is precisely to convey, in a uniform way,
> the metadata encapsulated in the original format(s).
> I don't see how the fact that the original format is binary or not makes
> it more or less relevant...

Note that it was a misunderstanding by myself as to what the RDF file
was supposed to contain. I understood it to be a definition format for
the metadata possible and defined to be able to appear inside an Ogg
file. However, it was just supposed to be an example describing what
was actually found inside the example files. I was missing that bit.

Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 13:04:52 UTC

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