- From: Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:19:02 +0100
- To: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hello, The way I see it, is that the definition of the data interchange format [1] is part of the API and therefore important. If we define a flexible format (like JSON) we could define type-value pairs or an array thereof which defines what you get (preferably in a simple way). It could solve the granularity problem i.e. "dc:rights vs. xmpDM:copyright" by informing what attribute is referred e.g. [Disney,dc:rights] [Walt Disney Company ,xmpDM:copyright]. We could define what a valid array should look like: [(value, attribute), (value, attribute),..., (value, attribute)] - and valid values for "value" and "attribute" in BNF for example. The ontology could then perhaps define the levels of granularity e.g. (from top to bottom) DC -> EXIF -> XMP being the order of the elements in the array, similar to the schema of preference defined by the Metadata Working Group. Just some thoughts to get the discussion going... /Joakim [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/Dataformat
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 15:20:19 UTC