- From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:25:13 +0100
- To: Pierre-Antoine <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
It looks like what I suggested during the F2F. So a priori yes for me. JP ________________________________________ De : Pierre-Antoine [pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr] Date d'envoi : vendredi, 20. novembre 2009 14:11 À : Evain, Jean-Pierre Cc : public-media-annotation@w3.org Objet : RE : [mawg] RE: [q] MAWG: Definition of subproperties Le 20/11/2009 10:16, Evain, Jean-Pierre a écrit : > PA, > > do you mean a property/sub-property like title / (title) type? > or contributor / role? without specifying what the type or role > is but allow mapping to what is available from other descriptions. Basically, yes, this is what I mean. More recisely, I suggest that, e.g. md.get("contributor") would return a set of values. Those values would basically be text, but would have an optional attribute (call it "role" or "subproperty"...) indicating more precisely the kind of contributor represented by the text. This optional attribute would represent additional semantics (w.r.t. the general semantics of ma:contributor), provided by the underlying format. At first, we can leave this field completely unspecified and let implementators do whatever they see fit to fill it. Later on, we could identify a set of standard values for these fields, to reflect notions that are considered relevant enough, and present in one or several underlying format. Again, try out to my implementation [1] (quite outdated regarding our drafts, but this is not the point here) for an example of this idea. For the moment, my implementation only provide the additional information if you explicitly ask for "structured" value. The sub-property is carried by the "property" field (quite ill-name, I agree ;)... My point is : we should decide now how to make this information available in the interface (the "structured" flag is not necessarily the good way to do it). This is a little extra work, granted, but it paves the way for extensibility (even if we chose not to standardize this extensibility -- de facto standard could as well emerge from this feature). pa [1] http://champin.net/wsgi/mawg/
Received on Friday, 20 November 2009 14:38:07 UTC