- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:25:28 +0100
- To: Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu>, Web Annotation <public-annotation@w3.org>
Hi Jacob, > Actually there is a simple dctype for audio dctype:Sound > (http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Sound). Thanks, I overlooked this one. > I don't see an advantage to using the Schema vocabulary over the DCMI > vocabulary which is highly extensible and serves as the foundation for > many existing web ontologies. Regarding DCMI modeling, I still have problem to consider that a movie (dctype:MovingImage) is a subclass of an image (dctype:Image), even when stretching the definition of an image as dctype does. This is counter intuitive and going against what most other (media) ontologies do (ontology for media resources, schema.org, EBUCore, etc.). Regarding schema.org, I just observe that Web Annotations plan already to re-use some of its terms. Finally, we are talking about describing media resources, so why is the *W3C* ontology for Media Resources not the most natural candidate ontology to re-use? Best regards. Raphaël -- Raphaël Troncy EURECOM, Campus SophiaTech Multimedia Communications Department 450 route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, 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.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
Received on Monday, 30 November 2015 15:27:46 UTC