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

RE : RE : [mawg] RE: [q] MAWG: Definition of subproperties

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>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D6001006EB6CC72@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
It looks like what I suggested during the F2F.  So a priori yes for me.


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.


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Again, try out to my implementation [1] (quite outdated regarding our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).


[1] http://champin.net/wsgi/mawg/
Received on Friday, 20 November 2009 14:38:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:37 UTC