- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 20:56:56 +0900 (JST)
- To: Rapha?l Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Cc: Rub?n Tous <rtous@ac.upc.edu>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
Rapha$(D+3(Bl Troncy $B$5$s$O=q$-$^$7$?(B: > > 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). I agree. > 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. +1 as well. > > Ruben, Victor (the UPC gang), do you have write access to the wiki? Ruben at least should have write access, since he is Working Group participant. Felix > What about adding there the use cases you have sent to the list and completing the existing ones? > Best regards. > > Rapha$(D+3(Bl >
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 11:58:03 UTC