- From: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@taxonomystrategies.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 07:43:03 -0700
- To: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hi Felix, Thanks for the additional information. > I see one value of the work of the MAWG that it combines the semantics > defined in the mapping table with data type descriptions described in > the API. If we would use Dublin Core here the picture would get rather > complicated, since some of the underlying formats use dublin core as > well, but with a difference in the degree of explicity for data type > descriptions (e.g. XMP as an example with many details). That would > lead to a mapping from DC in XMP to DC in MAWG, with a lot of data > type unclearness. Right, I see what you are saying. I'd like to think about this a bit. My current question is whether data type cleanliness is going to be significant - how much difference is there in the mapping code going from XMP to format X, vs. from EBUCore to format X? Another question I want to think about is how much of this is motivated by the specifics of the API, and would a different API design avoid this confusion between ma:x and dc:x? More later after I ponder a bit. Best regards, Ron
Received on Monday, 12 October 2009 14:43:41 UTC