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

RE: Publishing the Mapping Table (was minutes of 2009-03-10 teleconference)

From: Soohong Daniel Park <soohong.park@samsung.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:44:00 +0900
To: 'David Singer' <singer@apple.com>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
Message-id: <007701c9a76b$029888e0$07c99aa0$%park@samsung.com>
Yes, the ontology is our target. 


I'd recommend you to participate in the next call and elaborate on your two
different approaches in detail (for example: each pros and cons and
well-known approach on the web for the ontology, etc...)

Soohong Daniel Park
Standard Architect, blog.naver.com/natpt
DMC Business, Samsung Electronics. KOREA

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
> annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Singer
> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:01 AM
> To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Publishing the Mapping Table (was minutes of 2009-03-10
> teleconference)
> I am trying to come up to speed here, and a recent remark caught my
> eye and made me wonder:
> are we clear on the purpose of the ontology?  There is a substantial
> difference between a one-way mapping:
> If you want to know the answer to question X as a string, you can:
>    access the ID3 tag I
>    find the R aspect of the MPEG-7 construct C
>    append F and G from the EXIF meta-data space
>    ...and so on...
> and two-way mapping:
>    R in EXIF can be converted to/from Q in ID3 (most of the time)
> If our interest is in the WWW and APIs to access meta-data, the
> limited one-way mapping, and the result format, may be of more use to
> us.
> Sorry if this has already been covered.
> --
> David Singer
> Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 01:44:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:34 UTC