- From: Bailer, Werner <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:27:19 +0200
- To: Pierre-Antoine <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hi Pierre-Antoine, I also thought of option (a), and using comprehensive lists of the sub-properties (such as the EBU one for the roles of creators and contributors). We shortly discussed in Stockholm whether these lists of sub-properties should be normative or not, but afaik we do not have an agreement on this. Best regards, Werner > -----Original Message----- > From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media- > annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Pierre-Antoine > Sent: Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2009 15:34 > To: public-media-annotation@w3.org > Subject: roles, relationships, etc... > > Hi again, > > in several places in the API, we have qualifiers to the returned value: > Contributor.role > Fragment.role > Relation.relationship > > by contributing to the API Open Issues wiki page, I realize that I'm > not > sure of what is inteded here. > > Is it expected that a) we define in our API a list of possible roles > for > contributors (to keep this sole example), and define a mapping of this > list with all the possible roles in the in-scope formats ? > > Or do we expect b) to get here a string coming "directly" from the > underlying format? > > I was implicitly assuming (b) (e.g. in my mail [1]) but it seems to me > that others are assuming (a) -- and the more I think about its, the > more > I prefer (a) myself ;) It seems to offer a greater interoperability and > is homogeneous to what we do for 1st level properties (defining a > "central" property, and a mapping from that property to any other). > > Could anybody confirm that this is how they envision the definition of > those "sub-properties" in the API? > > pa > > > [1] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media- > annotation/2009Oct/0038.html
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 12:28:51 UTC