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

Re: Review of 'Use Cases and Requirements for Ontology and API for Media Object 1.0', Working Draft 19 January 2009

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pchampin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:27:58 +0000
Message-ID: <4990052E.7080506@liris.cnrs.fr>
To: fsasaki@w3.org
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org, public-media-fragment@w3.org

Felix Sasaki a écrit :
>>> I think Yves made the point that FRBR does pose problems for videos, and
>>> he
>>> told me offline (I hope no secret) that the BCC is not using it, but
>>> their
>>> own abstraction scheme.
>> which is really, really, similar to FRBR Items and Manifestations (a
>> rdfs:subClassOf should happen, at some point).
> 
> I think I said it before, and the charter of this working group
> http://www.w3.org/2008/01/media-annotations-wg.html
> says it too: our goal is to develop a simple lingua franca for existing
> formats. If we want to take FRBR as an input format into account, IMO
> there has to be existing applications which output FRBR. Otherwise we will
> end up in feature creep and a lot of "wouldn't it be nice?" discussions.

I would argue in favor of keeping only the "greatest common divider".
The distinction between Item and Manifestation seems quite stable. Seems
to me that they correspond to the notions of Entity and Resource in the
Web (HTTP) terminology.

Besides that, I would be tempted to say that a Resource can be "derived
from" another Resource, and that this relation subsumes the
Manifestation-Expression, Expression-Work, Work-Work relations in FRBR,
or the Broadcast-Version, Version-Episode relations in the BBC ontology.

  pa
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 10:28:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:32 GMT