W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > January 2009

RE: data interchange format

From: Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:43:04 +0100
Message-ID: <4055256AED9D224D9442B19BF1C4C490031F8B19@esealmw118.eemea.ericsson.se>
To: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>
Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
I don't mean that we should use JSON but be inspired by what they do. But it is possible that your approach is a way forward. Maybe we can discuss it next time you attend the telephone meeting?


-----Original Message-----
From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
Sent: den 13 januari 2009 16:32
To: Joakim Söderberg
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: data interchange format

Hi Joakim,

I tried a different approach which is again not specific to a format 
(JSON / RDF / XML / ...). It is an update of the XSLT implementation, 
but that is replacable.

I updated

to contain a property "dateGeneral", in addition to "pubdate". 
"dateGeneral" encompasses both "pubdate" and other kinds of dates, e.g. 
"modification date". So querying a feed using the property "dateGeneral" 
gives you a superset of the results of "pubdate". See e.g.


I like the levels of granularity you describe DC > EXIF > XMP, but I'm 
not sure if you need a specific format to achieve that. The granularity 
description itself is enough to achieve the effect you want, see above 
implementation. And a format would create the burden that it must be 
implemented by tools who normally don't process Jason, e.g. browsers.


Joakim Söderberg さんは書きました:
> 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 15:43:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:31 UTC