Re: Why not use DC?

Dan Brickley a écrit :
> On 18/6/09 02:48, Renato Iannella wrote:
>>
>> In Section 4.1.2 of <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-mediaont-10-20090618>
>> abut 11 of the Core Properties are the same as Dublin Core - why not use
>> that namespace?
> 
> One argument might be reduced scope, however in
> 
> "[Definition: Media Resource]
> 
>     Any Resource (as defined by [RFC 3986]) related to a media content.
> Note that [RFC 3986] 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."
> 
> ...it's clear that a "Media Resource" can be anything, since "related
> to" is completely unconstrained.

ehr... that was not really the intended meaning of "related to" :-/
(though now that you're pointing it out, it can indeed be interpreted
that way).

According to your interpretation, the director of a movie would be
covered by the definition, which was indeed not intended (or did I miss
something? ;-)

Would "Any Resource (...) representing a media content" be clearer (this
is a question to the WG as well) ? It may seem a little too "concrete"
at first sight (e.g. implying "machine representation"), but I think the
following paragraph makes it clear it can be more abstract.

  pa