AW: [mawg]Fragments and NamedFragments

As far as I remember, we discussed dropping namedFragments in the Sophia meeting, as Raphael explained that named fragments are no longer special cases in the fragments spec. I think this should be in the minutes of that F2F.

Best regards,
Werner


________________________________________
Von: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] im Auftrag von Evain, Jean-Pierre [evain@ebu.ch]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. November 2010 14:58
An: 'Chris Poppe'; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Betreff: RE: [mawg]Fragments and NamedFragments

Dear Chris,

We actually have implemented this using subproperties to hasFragment linking a MediaFragment to a MediaResource.  This encompasses two aspects of your comment: namedFragment but also any additional role. The Fragment already has a fragmentName in the RDF.

Regards,

Jean-Pierre

-----Original Message-----
From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Chris Poppe
Sent: mardi, 16. novembre 2010 14:46
To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: [mawg]Fragments and NamedFragments

Dear all,

In my quest to simplify the API document I was looking at the fragments and
namedFragments property. Wouldn't it be easier to just use one property
"fragments" with an id, an optional "role", and an optional "name"? The same
holds for the ontology document of course.

Kind regards,
Chris


Ghent University - IBBT
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Electronics and Information Systems (ELIS)
Multimedia Lab Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201
B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent
Belgium

t: +32 9 33 14959
f: +32 9 33 14896
t secr: +32 9 33 14911
e: chris.poppe@ugent.be

URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be

Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2010 14:10:33 UTC