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'.


> 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:

It is written:
"Entity" is either a "Resource" (abstract concept) or a "Representation" 

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.
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 Troncy
CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science),
Science Park 123, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: &
Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093
Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312

Received on Monday, 20 April 2009 12:37:52 UTC