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

RE: Why not use DC?

From: Chris Poppe <Chris.Poppe@ugent.be>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:45:49 +0200
To: "'Pierre-Antoine Champin'" <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003901c9eff9$90c3dc60$b24b9520$@Poppe@ugent.be>
I agree that "represents" is more appropriate.

Kind regards,

-----Original Message-----
From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Pierre-Antoine
Sent: donderdag 18 juni 2009 11:16
To: Dan Brickley
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: 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
> ...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.

Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 09:46:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:36 UTC