Re: [call for comments] ma:compression vs. ma:coding vs. ma:encoding

On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:00 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:

> They are not really URIs, but URNs that were defined by MPEG. Also, I would suggest to extend the document with the codecs parameter for the MIME types which have been standardised for some of the existing MPEG MIME types (and are actually in use in HTML5).
Well, yes, please provide me a list and I'm happy to integrate. However, this document just maintains MPEG codecs ;-)

> 
> I can see that you would want more information on the format than just encapsulation format and codecs (which is typically what the MIME types give you). You also want profiles. Maybe then ma:encoding_profiles is the right word?
Don't get me wrong, I just wanted to point out, that this document exists and maybe you find it useful for your discussion.

Best regards,
 -Christian

> 
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Christian Timmerer (ITEC) <christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at> wrote:
> 
> MPEG has defined URI for its codecs and the list is available at http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/working_documents/general/URI.zip. Latest version (approved last week) is attached. Let me know in case something is missing.
> 
> Best regards,
>  -Christian
> 
> 
> On Apr 28, 2010, at 2:26 PM, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:
> 
>> I have personally problems with MIME types.
>>  
>> Taking the video  example MIME type are a mix of video compression (unprecise) formats and wrapper formats (incomplete list anyway):
>>  
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/video/
>>  
>> The same problem with audio compression.
>>  
>> Unless for specific applications for which users have taken the burden to register the types, I stop at the higher level like audio, video, application. Of course AV content is only covered through wrappers (under video), which is another ambiguity of MIME types.  This is also why I prefer to use file format as the attribute to qualify wrappers.
>>  
>> Regards,
>>  
>> Jean-Pierre
>>  
>> From: Silvia Pfeiffer [mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com] 
>> Sent: mercredi, 28. avril 2010 10:40
>> To: Daniel Park
>> Cc: Evain, Jean-Pierre; public-media-annotation@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: [call for comments] ma:compression vs. ma:coding vs. ma:encoding
>>  
>> 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
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> ************************************************** 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 **************************************************
>> 
> 
> 
>