- From: Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 09:22:10 +0200
- To: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>
- Cc: "Pierre-Antoine Champin" <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, "Media Annotation" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
I find your definition very elegant and totally accurate, 100% OK to change the text with this! Best, Véronique On May 29, 2009, at 4:55 AM, 이원석 wrote: > Hi. Pierre-Antoine. > > I agreed with your definition. > And I feel media resource is more intuitive > > Best regards, > Wonsuk > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media- >> annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Pierre-Antoine Champin >> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 10:24 PM >> To: Media Annotation >> Subject: Terminology proposal >> >> Following Sylvia's answer to the question about our terminology, I >> propose >> that : >> >> we replace the 3 definitions of media entity, resource and >> representation >> by a single definition of 'media resource', that would look like: >> >> Media Resource: any Resource (as defined by [URI]) related to a >> media content. Note that [URI] points out that a resource may be >> retrievable or not. Hence, this term encompasses the abstract notion >> of a movie (e.g. Notting Hill) as well as the binary encoding of >> this >> movie (e.g. the MPEG-4 encoding of Notting Hill on my DVD), or any >> intermediate levels of abstraction (e.g. the director's cut or the >> plane version of Notting Hill). Although some ontologies (FRBR, BBC) >> define concepts for different such levels of abstraction, our >> ontology >> does not commit to any classification of media resources. >> >> I think the benefits are the following: >> >> 1) we drop the controversial term 'entity' >> 2) we are compatible with MFWG (who refer to [URI] as well) >> 3) we acknowledge the fact that there are several levels of >> abstraction, >> but at the same time... >> 4) we are consistent with our decision not to formalize them (w.r.t. >> that, 'resource' vs. 'representation' was such a formalization, >> though >> minimal) >> >> I recall below the definition of 'resource' from [URI]. Note that >> they use >> (without defining it, though), the term 'entity', which is somewhat >> more >> "concrete" than 'resource'. I believe that this definition provides >> the >> generality that we are seeking with 'entity', and I guess the more >> restrictive meaning that we gave to 'resource' in the current >> definition >> is what makes Sylvia think it is incompatible with the definition >> below. >> >> pa >> >> >> from [URI] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2396.html : >> >> Resource >> A resource can be anything that has identity. Familiar >> examples include an electronic document, an image, a service >> (e.g., "today's weather report for Los Angeles"), and a >> collection of other resources. Not all resources are network >> "retrievable"; e.g., human beings, corporations, and bound >> books in a library can also be considered resources. >> >> The resource is the conceptual mapping to an entity or set of >> entities, not necessarily the entity which corresponds to >> that >> mapping at any particular instance in time. Thus, a resource >> can remain constant even when its content---the entities to >> which it currently corresponds---changes over time, provided >> that the conceptual mapping is not changed in the process >> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 29 May 2009 07:23:48 UTC