RE: Terminology proposal

I also like the definition and use of 'media resource'!

/Joakim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
> annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Veronique Malaise
> Sent: den 29 maj 2009 09:22
> To: ???
> Cc: Pierre-Antoine Champin; Media Annotation
> Subject: Re: Terminology proposal
> 
> I find your definition very elegant and totally accurate, 100% OK to
> change the text with this!
> 
> Best,
> Véronique
> 
> On May 29, 2009, at 4:55 AM, 이원석 wrote:
> 
> > Hi. Pierre-Antoine.
> >
> > I agreed with your definition.
> > And I feel media resource is more intuitive
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Wonsuk
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
> >> annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Pierre-Antoine Champin
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 10:24 PM
> >> To: Media Annotation
> >> Subject: Terminology proposal
> >>
> >> Following Sylvia's answer to the question about our terminology, I
> >> propose
> >> that :
> >>
> >> we replace the 3 definitions of media entity, resource and
> >> representation
> >> by a single definition of 'media resource', that would look like:
> >>
> >>  Media Resource: any Resource (as defined by [URI]) related to a
> >>  media content. Note that [URI] points out that a resource may be
> >>  retrievable or not. Hence, this term encompasses the abstract notion
> >>  of a movie (e.g. Notting Hill) as well as the binary encoding of
> >> this
> >>  movie (e.g. the MPEG-4 encoding of Notting Hill on my DVD), or any
> >>  intermediate levels of abstraction (e.g. the director's cut or the
> >>  plane version of Notting Hill). Although some ontologies (FRBR, BBC)
> >>  define concepts for different such levels of abstraction, our
> >> ontology
> >>  does not commit to any classification of media resources.
> >>
> >> I think the benefits are the following:
> >>
> >> 1) we drop the controversial term 'entity'
> >> 2) we are compatible with MFWG (who refer to [URI] as well)
> >> 3) we acknowledge the fact that there are several levels of
> >> abstraction,
> >> but at the same time...
> >> 4) we are consistent with our decision not to formalize them (w.r.t.
> >> that, 'resource' vs. 'representation' was such a formalization,
> >> though
> >> minimal)
> >>
> >> I recall below the definition of 'resource' from [URI]. Note that
> >> they use
> >> (without defining it, though), the term 'entity', which is somewhat
> >> more
> >> "concrete" than 'resource'. I believe that this definition provides
> >> the
> >> generality that we are seeking with 'entity', and I guess the more
> >> restrictive meaning that we gave to 'resource' in the current
> >> definition
> >> is what makes Sylvia think it is incompatible with the definition
> >> below.
> >>
> >>  pa
> >>
> >>
> >> from [URI] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2396.html :
> >>
> >>      Resource
> >>         A resource can be anything that has identity.  Familiar
> >>         examples include an electronic document, an image, a service
> >>         (e.g., "today's weather report for Los Angeles"), and a
> >>         collection of other resources.  Not all resources are network
> >>         "retrievable"; e.g., human beings, corporations, and bound
> >>         books in a library can also be considered resources.
> >>
> >>         The resource is the conceptual mapping to an entity or set of
> >>         entities, not necessarily the entity which corresponds to
> >> that
> >>         mapping at any particular instance in time.  Thus, a resource
> >>         can remain constant even when its content---the entities to
> >>         which it currently corresponds---changes over time, provided
> >>         that the conceptual mapping is not changed in the process
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 13:43:58 UTC