Re: Why not use DC?

There seems to be a misunderstanding in this thread about what "ma:" is.
These are not new properties meant for usage themselves, but means to
interrelated existing properties. The main outcome of the group is the
mapping of "ma:" to other formats, that is the ontology. Currently this is a
table, in the future the mapping might be represented differently.

Another outcome will be an API to access metadata, but again not for reading
or writing "ma:" properties directly, but rather the scenario is: you ask
for "ma:creator", but will get "dc:creator" or whatever is in the media
file, and you ask for writing a "creator", but we will not write
"ma:creator" in the media file, but what is appropriate for the format.

Not all questions are solved, esp. related to writing metadata in various
formats, but it should be clear from the above that the group is on track
with its charter. I think what is necessary now is feedback on the main work
which has been done so far - that is the mappings inside the table itself
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-mediaont-10-20090618/#mapping-table

Regards, Felix.

2009/6/19 Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>

>
> On 18 Jun 2009, at 17:31, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
>  Another might be that DC is simply one of 25+ schemes investigated, all
>> of which have some common aspects. Why bless DC rather than the others?
>> A DC response here would be that Dublin Core is intended to be a
>> lightweight common core, created for just such purposes, ie. mixing
>> information across domains.
>>
>
>
> Lets see, the mission of the MAWG is to "...provide an ontology designed to
> facilitate cross-community data integration..." and it is unable to do that
> itself?
>
> XMP, EUBCore, MediaRDF reused DC. (LOM sort-of did)
>
> Unless you can say where those 11 properties are different to DC, then the
> group has failed its mission.
>
> Cheers...  Renato Iannella
> NICTA
>
>
>