- From: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:36:26 +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 Felix, > I have a high preference to stick to the canonical representation of > XMP, since it opens or rather keeps doors to three processing scenarios > (XMP specific, XMP, RDF), and I hope that the door to RDF processing > does not rely on the non-XML serialization. Serialization is a different issue, butI was not suggesting to use a different syntax than XML/RDF (I'm all for having an XML/RDF serialization, this is the official syntax ;-)). I like also the canonical representation of XMP, I didn't say we should not stick on that. I just say that when there are _multiple_ ways of encoding structured lists, we should pick one (from the canonical representation) to solve the ambiguity. Therefore, I don't see what are the remaining issues of creating an rdf schema of the XMP metadata model. Could you point me one? 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 Tuesday, 10 March 2009 10:38:23 UTC