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

Re: Call for comments on MAWG Terminology

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 23:37:28 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830905250637o64309202pb8029ba724a6fc8a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
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.

There is however always the possibility to open your own naming space
- in which case there is no need to be in sync with MF, since we are
in sync with URI.


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].
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 13:38:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:42 UTC