- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:40:08 +1000
- To: Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
- Message-ID: <o2s2c0e02831004280140x57b1a0aflf182862bb1cc45e2@mail.gmail.com>
Is it for specifying a codec or more than that? If a codec, then why not use the codec parameters of the mime types in ma:mimetype? If more - how are you going to specify them? Is there standard vocabulary? Cheers, Silvia. On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com> wrote: > Folks, > > Given the comment below: > "ma:compression" Have you considered calling it ma:coding instead? One may > wish to use a coding of a resource for purposes other than compression (e.g. > fast random access, low memory footprint, minimal CPU usage, etc.) and in > some cases the coding might cause the representation to be bigger than the > source. > > We'd see your opinions which might be good selection for our property. > Please reply to me quickly. (Due is strictely today) > > [1] ma:compression > [2] ma:coding > [3] ma:encoding > > > > Daniel > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch> wrote: > >> Hi Daniel, >> >> >> >> In EBU, we use 'compression' or 'encoding' .(not coding) >> >> >> >> Regards, JP >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Daniel Park [mailto:soohongp@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* lundi, 26. avril 2010 17:07 >> *To:* Evain, Jean-Pierre >> *Subject:* Re: Ontology definition >> >> >> >> JP, >> >> >> >> I'd ask your opinion on the comment below: >> >> >> >> "ma:compression" Have you considered calling it ma:coding instead? One may >> wish to use a coding of a resource for purposes other than compression (e.g. >> fast random access, low memory footprint, minimal CPU usage, etc.) and in >> some cases the coding might cause the representation to be bigger than the >> source. >> >> What do you think ? Please feedback quickly... >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> >> >> Daniel >> >> 2010/4/26 Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch> >> >> ;-), JP >> >> >> >> *From:* public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto: >> public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Daniel Park >> *Sent:* lundi, 26. avril 2010 15:46 >> >> >> *To:* public-media-annotation@w3.org >> >> *Subject:* Fwd: Ontology definition >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *The Forwarding Message will be attached.* >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Strassner John Charles" <johns@postech.ac.kr> >> To: public-media-annotation@w3.org, johns@postech.ac.kr >> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:47:18 +0900 (KST) >> Subject: Ontology definition >> Hi team, >> >> here is the definition of an ontology that I use when I teach. It is my >> definition, so you are free to blame me. :-) This is from the following >> reference: >> >> J. Strassner, “*Knowledge Engineering Using Ontologies*”, Handbook of >> Network and System Administration, edited by J. Bergstra and M. Burgess, >> Chapter 3, Section 4, pages 425-457, ISBN 9780444521989 >> >> *An ontology is a formal, explicit specification of a shared, >> machine-readable vocabulary and meanings, in the form of various entities >> and relationships between them, to describe knowledge about the contents of >> one or more related subject domains throughout the life cycle of its >> existence. These entities and relationships are used to represent knowledge >> in the set of related subject domains. Formal refers to the fact that the >> ontology should be representable in a formal grammar. Explicit means that >> the entities and relationships used, and the constraints on their use, are >> precisely and unambiguously defined in a declarative language suitable for >> knowledge representation. Shared means that all users of an ontology will >> represent a concept using the same or equivalent set of entities and >> relationships. Subject domain refers to the content of the universe of >> discourse being represented by the ontology.* >> >> Ontologies can be combined or related to each other using ontological >> commitments as follows: >> >> *An ontology commitment represents a selection of the best mapping >> between the terms in an ontology and their meanings. Hence, ontologies can >> be combined and/or related to each other by defining a set of mappings that >> define precisely and unambiguously how one node in one ontology is related >> to another node in another ontology.* >> >> >> >> >> regards, >> John >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Soohong Daniel Park >> Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D >> http://sites.google.com/site/natpt00/home | Twitter@natpt >> ------------------------------ >> >> *************************************************** This email and any >> files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use >> of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received >> this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also >> confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway >> ************************************************** * >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Soohong Daniel Park >> Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D >> http://sites.google.com/site/natpt00/home | Twitter@natpt >> > > > > -- > Soohong Daniel Park > Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D > http://sites.google.com/site/natpt00/home | Twitter@natpt >
Received on Wednesday, 28 April 2010 08:41:03 UTC