- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 23:22:28 +1000
- To: Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2y2c0e02831004280622l3a0acdeeze09fd542fcd71905@mail.gmail.com>
I vote for ma:encoding - or alternatively you could do ma:mime + ma:codecs + ma:profile. Cheers, Silvia. On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com> wrote: > Folks, > > This loop is very valuable discussion, but now we might select one > definition to be ready for LC. Of course this technical debate can be kept > in parallel... > > So, once again, what's your opinion. Please selece one > > [1] ma:compression > [2] ma:coding > [3] ma:encoding > > > Daniel > > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:49 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 >> > > > > -- > Soohong Daniel Park > Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D > http://sites.google.com/site/natpt00/home | Twitter@natpt >
Received on Wednesday, 28 April 2010 13:23:23 UTC