Re: F2F 3 and call for comments

Dear Joakim,

Regarding terminology: could we please avoid the term 'Tag', like in 
'Top Supported Tags' [1]? I think it is completely inappropriate in the 
context of this WG. We're talking about annotation properties, a 
well-defined term in all the metadata community and with a clear 
distinction with what a tag is or can be! In particular, the properties 
we are talking about are generally typed. It would clarify the 
discussion if could forget about 'tagging'.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/Top_Supported_Tags

> One thing; on Friday we decided to not talk about ďmedia objectsĒ 
> anymore, but ďmedia entitiesĒ. A media entity can be both a resource and 
> a representation. See introduction to:
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/Top_Supported_Tags

It is written:
"Entity" is either a "Resource" (abstract concept) or a "Representation" 
(instance/file);

Does it refer to the concepts of Resource and Representation as defined 
in AWWSW? If yes, then a reference should be provided!
Note that the AWWSW task force is currently working on the ontology for 
that, e.g. http://rdfs.org/ns/http-sem/html
There are still looking for the correct term for the super-class of 
Resource and Representation, but it will definitively *NOT* be 'Entity'.
What was wrong with 'Media Objects'? Would 'Media resources' not be good?

Best regards.

   RaphaŽl

-- 
RaphaŽl Troncy
CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science),
Science Park 123, 1098 XG 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 Monday, 20 April 2009 12:37:52 UTC