- From: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 10:38:10 +0100
- To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- CC: Rubén Tous <rtous@ac.upc.edu>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
Dear all, > as you said below, in some formats like EXIF there is no separation > between "historic" and metadata of the resource, and in others there is. > Again I think we need to decide: how many details do we want to take > into account? I think for metadata interoperability, the EXIF+others > approach from the metadata WG is sufficient. What do you think? At this stage, I think it is not wise to take a final decision of what goes in the media ontology (and what does not). A very good approach is however to document all the possible alternatives (i.e. precisely describe for each formats/standards what they can do). It will be useful at the end for justifying the rationale behind the ontology modeling and scope. Ruben, Victor (the UPC gang), do you have write access to the wiki? What about adding there the use cases you have sent to the list and completing the existing ones? Best regards. Raphaël -- Raphaël Troncy CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Kruislaan 413, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093 Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312 Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 09:38:53 UTC