Re: Response to your LC Comment -2389 on Media Ontology spec

Thomas,

Thank you for your response.
After reading your email, I have changed the status of your Comments to 
"Commenter approved disposition".

Best,
Thierry



Le 04/10/2010 16:59, Thomas Steiner a écrit :
> Hi Thierry, hi Work Group members,
>
> Thank you for your detailed response! Please find my comments below.
>
>> 1) Subtitles
>>
>> Concerning external subtitles, using ma:relation is the correct approach as
>> in your example. The identifier attribute contains the URL of the subtitle
>> file, and the relation type qualifies it as a subtitle relation. The value
>> should be a URI, but could also be a string. It is recommended to use a
>> controlled vocabulary for the type of the relation.
> This is perfectly what I was hoping for. Agreed.
>
>> Embedding of subtitles is not a use case that we considered, however it is
>> possible. The mechanism we use to specify timed metadata is to specify
>> fragments identified by Media Fragment URIs [1] and then describe
>> annotations of these fragments.
> Same here. Agreed.
>
>> - Link to external subtitle file using ma:fragment, with type subtitle and a
>> Timed Text Markup Language (TTML) [2] or WebSRT [3] file as target.
> Assuming ma:fragment is actually ma:relation. Agreed.
>
>> - Subtitles can be embedded in a media file, in which case they can be
>> described as a track media fragment using ma:fragment and Media Fragment
>> URIs [1].
> This sounds like a nice and flexible way. Agreed.
>
>> - Subtitles could be embedded by using ma:title with a type qualifier for
>> subtitle. A list of time media fragments is defined and each fragment is
>> annotated using ma:title.
> This, while possible, sounds like an overcharge of what ma:title was
> designed for. Personally I'd not go this way.
>
>> Although the last option is a way of embedding subtitles that is not a use
>> case we considered. We expect that in most cases a dedicated format such as
>> TTML or WebSRT will be used for the subtitles and referenced.
> Agreed. TTML and WebSRT are both very good standards.
>
>> 2) Semantic annotation
>>
>> As described above, time based annotations are a possible. Currently, two
>> cases are covered by the spec:
>>
>> - use ma:description for a textual description of the media resource (or a
>> fragment)
> Possible, but not machine-readable/understandable by default.
>
>> - use ma:relation to link to a RDF file or named graph containing the
>> annotation for the media resource (or fragment)
> Good solution. Especially when used with ma:fragment this has the
> potential and degree of freedom of expression that I need. Agreed.
>
>> There is currently no solution for embedding a set of triples into one of
>> the ma:* properties. We understand that might be useful and have started
>> discussion with the Semantic Web Coordination Group about a solution for
>> this problem (see thread starting at [3]). The summary of the discussion is:
>> Named graphs could be a solution to this issue, but there is no standard
>> syntax for expressing them, to which our specification could refer. Such a
>> syntax might find its way into RDF 2.0. As no other applicable solution
>> emerged in the discussion, we decided to exclude the embedding of triples
>> into ma:* elements until a standard syntax for named graphs is available.
> Let's continue the discussion of [3] (the 2nd [3] ;-) below the first
> [3]) at [3].
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
>

Received on Monday, 4 October 2010 15:08:26 UTC