W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Call for comments on MAWG Terminology

From: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:57:45 +0200
Message-ID: <4A8AC169.2070305@cwi.nl>
To: Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com>
CC: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>, Media Annotation <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Dear Daniel,

[Apologies for the cross-post with the Media Annotations WG]

Silvia Pfeiffer a ťcrit :
> Just one comment.
> I think your distinction between resource and representation is not
> the way in which the Web uses the word "resource". The term "resource"
> is already defined in "URI" (unified resource identifier), so you
> should not need to re-define it.

It's actually a bit more complex than that. Indeed, the URI 
specification provides a definition for the term 'resource' but this 
definition has also been 'over-written' to some extent by the 
httpRange-14 decision and the SW technology stack (e.g. RDF).

For a bit of history, I would point out to this recent email from Tim 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Aug/0000.html and the 
interesting person can read the complete 100+ messages thread on the TAG 
mailing list :-)

The Media Fragments WG uses the 'URI meaning' of resource.
Given your terminology, property (annotations) are about representations 
? or resources ? If they are about resources, are they valid for *all* 
representations of this resource ?
Cheers.

   RaphaŽl

> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com> wrote:
>> MFWG folks,
>>
>> I'd send this *call for comments* for the terminologies used in our Ontology
>> document to be synced with MF usages. Please take a look at the current
>> terminologies below and let us know your view. If our terminologies seem to
>> be elaborated and clarified, feel free to let us know...
>>
>> Thanks your time and consideration.
>>
>>
>>
>> Daniel (for Media Annotation WG)
>>
>> --
>> Soohong Daniel Park
>> Standard Architect, http://blog.naver.com/natpt
>> DMC Business, Samsung Electronics, KOREA
>>
>> ==========================
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html
>>
>> 2.1 Terminology
>>
>> The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD and SHOULD NOT are to be interpreted as
>> defined in RFC 2119
>>
>> [Definition: Media Entity]
>>
>> A media entity is either a conceptual object (for example the play Hamlet by
>> Shakespeare) or a concrete object: a media file of one interpretation of
>> Hamlet, possibly online and possibly identified by a URL. These two types
>> are respectively refered to by the terms of resource and representation in
>> the RDF Schema vocabulary. We adopt here this terminology in order to be
>> consistent with the terminological choices of the Media Fragments Working
>> Group, which is closely related to our own activity. Another way of
>> expressing this difference and thus the variety of media entities taken into
>> account in this Working Group is the notions of Work and Item in FRBR(Note:
>> FRBR also considers two other "intermediate" entity status between a Work
>> and an Item)
>>
>> [Definition: Property]
>>
>> A property is an element from an existing metadata format for describing
>> media entities on the web. or an element from the core vocabulary defined in
>> this Working Group. For example, the Dublin Core creator element and the
>> Media Ontology creator element are properties. A property links a Media
>> Entity with a value: dc:creator links a given representationwith the value
>> of its creator (Dublin Core specifies: "Examples of a Creator include a
>> person, an organization, or a service.", this value can be specified as a
>> simple string or as the URI representing the creator. The set of properties
>> selected to be part of the Media Ontology Core vocabulary is listed in
>> section 4 Property definition.
>>
>> [Definition: Resource]
>>
>> A resource is an abstract concept, from which representation(s) can be
>> derived: the general notion of the play Hamlet by Shakespeare for example, a
>> "picture of a sunset", a concerto for violins etc.
>>
>> [Definition: Representation]
>>
>> A representation is a time-dependent document, or part of document,
>> identifiable by a URI. For example: a portion of raw data of a video, an
>> image, an audio, a text, any other time-aligned data or a composition of
>> them.
>>
>> [Definition: Mapping]
>>
>> The notion of Mapping refers to the description of relations between
>> elements of metadata schemas; in our case the mapping concerns the
>> Vocabularies "in scope", and the propertiesof the core vocabulary of the
>> Media Ontology. These Mappings are presented in section 4.2 Property mapping
>> table.
>>
>> [Definition: Property value types]
>>
>> Property value types are the types of values used in a property. Property
>> value types are defined in sec. 3 Property value types definitions. They are
>> relying mostly on XML Schema data types [XML Schema 2].
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
RaphaŽl Troncy
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des CrÍtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 17:35:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:34 GMT