W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > May 2003

TTAF metadata

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:46:48 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030516101534.02bc0ec0@pop.iamdigex.net>
To: <public-tt@w3.org>

At 09:34 AM 2003-05-16, Glenn A. Adams wrote:

>From: Johnb@screen.subtitling.com [mailto:Johnb@screen.subtitling.com]
>RE: Issue (I005):
> >The rights (accessrights) metadata item defined by [DCMES 1.1]
><http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-tt-af-1-0-req-20030515/> has not been included
>here, pending further consideration of whether and what intellectual
>property rights management (IPRM) related metadata to explicitly support in
>the TT AF.
>The inclusion of some form of rights and accessrights information is IMHO
>very important. Also of concern is the need to protect the intellectual
>property of the content. Speaking only wrt subtitle files - these are costly
>to produce - and many users regard a subtitle file as a significant asset.
>The inclusion of rights metadata does not protect the content from
>unscrupulous exploitation. Is there a means by which the content of the file
>(by which I mean the Timing / Style and Text) might be encrypted - whilst
>leaving the metadata in the clear?

[from Al]

Rights management should be addressed orthogonally to anything this 
specification has to say.

There should be a requirement that the provisions of this specfication 
neither assume nor restrict the application of general XML techniques for 
access control and rights management.

[and from Glenn]
>Please propoes specific meta data items and their value syntax and 
>semantics to serve the needs you feel are important.

[and from Al]

Please don't ask people for specific syntax in comments on a requirements 
document, unless they feel that there is a specific requirement for that 
specific syntax.

The requirement should be to provide a defined way to include general RDF, 
as measured at the model level, not any given syntax.

Compare with SRGS

  http://www.w3.org/TR/speech-grammar/#S4.11

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2001JulSep/0039.html

In particular this allows for anything in DCMI 1.1 to be injected in a way that
is conformant to DCMI.  [That's a requirement, too, even if subsumed within
the other one.]

As for syntax, there are not requirements but some guidance one could suggest.

Mostly it is "use verbatim a syntax that is used in a similar format with a 
larger market."

If we can figure out what XHTML 2.0 is going to do fast enough, that might be
the preferred thing to copy.  Else SVG is also a candidate.

Is there an option to say it doesn't make sense for TTAF to be muddying
waters in which bigger elephants are wallowing (HTML) and use namespaces
to include RDF metadata in some W3C syntax and be done with it?

I suppose that there are versions of that last idea for any of several 
modularization techniques.

Al
Received on Friday, 16 May 2003 16:14:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 November 2009 22:41:26 GMT