- From: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:43:17 +0100
- To: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
- CC: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>, Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
Dear all, > page 59-60 of > http://www.adobe.com/devnet/xmp/pdfs/XMPSpecificationPart2.pdf > contains some RDF in XML examples, not a schema, but maybe helpful in > terms of checking "we don't want to do something different than that". > also, > http://www.adobe.com/devnet/xmp/pdfs/XMPSpecificationPart1.pdf > contains a section "Canonical representations as RDF", see also the > section "RDF issues", which describes (also) unsupported features of the > usage of RDF for XMP. > > How do you expect your schema to relate to the canonical representation > of XMP, and how do you expect the "RDF issues" to be solved? All the issues seem to be related to the difficulty of representing structured sets in RDF, and the well-known problems of rdf:List, rdf:Seq and rdf:Bag. These constraints from the XMP data model can be relaxed. What are the other "RDF issues" that are critical to prevent having an RDF Schema according to you? Cheers. Raphaël -- Raphaël Troncy CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Science Park 123, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093 Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312 Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
Received on Monday, 9 March 2009 22:44:25 UTC