- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:49:12 +0900
- To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pchampin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org, public-media-fragment@w3.org
Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: > Felix Sasaki a écrit : > >>>> I think Yves made the point that FRBR does pose problems for videos, and >>>> he >>>> told me offline (I hope no secret) that the BCC is not using it, but >>>> their >>>> own abstraction scheme. >>>> >>> which is really, really, similar to FRBR Items and Manifestations (a >>> rdfs:subClassOf should happen, at some point). >>> >> I think I said it before, and the charter of this working group >> http://www.w3.org/2008/01/media-annotations-wg.html >> says it too: our goal is to develop a simple lingua franca for existing >> formats. If we want to take FRBR as an input format into account, IMO >> there has to be existing applications which output FRBR. Otherwise we will >> end up in feature creep and a lot of "wouldn't it be nice?" discussions. >> > > I would argue in favor of keeping only the "greatest common divider". > The distinction between Item and Manifestation seems quite stable. Again, our goal is not about "quite stable", but about "is something available in existing data or not". > Seems > to me that they correspond to the notions of Entity and Resource in the > Web (HTTP) terminology. > > Besides that, I would be tempted to say that a Resource can be "derived > from" another Resource, and that this relation subsumes the > Manifestation-Expression, Expression-Work, Work-Work relations in FRBR, > or the Broadcast-Version, Version-Episode relations in the BBC ontology. > Again, there is the existing meta data for that? Felix > pa >
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 10:49:48 UTC