RE : ma-ont RDF latest version

Dear Werner,

Some clarification and synchronisation on who does/uses what (MAWG vs. MFWG) would be useful. I don't if the chiars could arrange a ea time slot during TPAC where we would have representatives from MFWG.

In any case, In the model we are now considering, it doesn't make sence to differentiate both as we can just give a name or not to a fragment.  There is currently two properties to allocate either a fragment or named fragment URI. However, if MFWG doesn't make the difference any more then a unique fragment locator would suffice.

Regards,

Jean-Pierre

________________________________________
De : Bailer, Werner [werner.bailer@joanneum.at]
Date d'envoi : vendredi, 15. octobre 2010 08:22
À : Evain, Jean-Pierre; Tobias Bürger
Cc : Davy Van Deursen; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Objet : RE: ma-ont RDF latest version

Dear Jean-Pierre,

I remember we had a discussion about namedFragment at last F2F. Raphael commented that MAWG still makes a distinction here although MFWG has meanwhile treats them the same.

I think we have not made a resolution, as we were (are) waiting for Raphael to send LC comments on behalf of MFWG.

Best regards,
Werner

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evain, Jean-Pierre [mailto:evain@ebu.ch]
> Sent: Freitag, 15. Oktober 2010 02:10
> To: Tobias Bürger; Bailer, Werner
> Cc: Davy Van Deursen; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: RE : ma-ont RDF latest version
>
> Thanks Tobias, all,
>
> There seem to be concensus. I'll work on a new version.
>
> I was thinking about namedFragment. Although the MFWG makes this
> disctinction, I wonder if we need to in MAWG as we would have a
> property 'name' that be be documented or not.  Then the URI attributed
> to the fragment would use an MFWG format or another, accordingly.
>
> I hope I'll find 5 minutes to do this today during my various meetings.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jean-Pierre
>
>
> ________________________________________
> De : Tobias Bürger [tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at]
> Date d'envoi : jeudi, 14. octobre 2010 18:20
> À : Bailer, Werner
> Cc : Evain, Jean-Pierre; Davy Van Deursen; public-media-
> annotation@w3.org
> Objet : Re: ma-ont RDF latest version
>
>   Dear all,
>
> given the definition of MF cited below, it makes sense to model MF like
> that.
>
> Best,
>
> Tobias
>
> Am 14.10.2010 15:34, schrieb Bailer, Werner:
> > Dear Davy, Jean-Pierre, all,
> >
> > I agree with the proposal that a media fragment is a subclass of
> media resource.
> >
> > Actually, this a clean way of modeling it, as we anyway couldn't
> prevent someone from expressing that by using a MFURI as the URI of a
> media resource.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Werner
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
> >> annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Evain, Jean-Pierre
> >> Sent: Donnerstag, 14. Oktober 2010 15:25
> >> To: Davy Van Deursen
> >> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> >> Subject: RE : ma-ont RDF latest version
> >>
> >> Hi Davy,
> >>
> >> Thank for summarsing the semantics, that will help me answering the
> >> question... (I hope :-)
> >>
> >> [[ Therefore, we should first look at the definition of a media
> >> resource [1] and I believe that a media fragment
> >> falls under that definition (if not, please clarify why not):
> >> " A media resource is any physical or logical Resource that can be
> >> identified using a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), as defined
> >> by [RFC 3986]) , which has or is related to one or more media
> content
> >> types."  More specifically, a media fragment is a physical
> >> resource, with a media content type (i.e., the same as its parent
> >> resource) and can be identified using a URI (i.e., a Media
> >> Fragments URI).]]
> >>
> >> This is effectively the key question and I would inviote the whole
> MAWG
> >> to consider this question.
> >>
> >> My first intention would have been to have media fragment as a
> subclass
> >> of media resource composed of audio and video tracks. If we all
> adopt
> >> and recognise more specifically that a fragment is a media resource
> >> which is iodentified by a MFURI I am happy with this but the group
> >> needs to confirm what the mediaFragment is. Then we could name
> >> (namedFragment, itself a subclass of fragment) and keyword a
> fragment
> >> and give him a URI. That would be 'clean'.
> >>
> >> Then  if the question arises of whether a media fragment is a
> subclass
> >> of media resource, I would answer that any media resource is an
> atomic
> >> media fragment.
> >>
> >> In other words, I personally can agree with what you suggest but
> would
> >> like to hear from the group.
> >>
> >> Tobias and team, what do you think?
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Jean-Pierre
> >> -----------------------------------------
> >> **************************************************
> >> 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
> >> **************************************************
> >>
> >
>
> --
> ================================================================
> Dr. Tobias Bürger         Knowledge and Media Technologies Group
> Salzburg Research                           FON +43.662.2288-415
> Forschungsgesellschaft                      FAX +43.662.2288-222
> Jakob-Haringer-Straße 5/III   tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at
> A-5020 Salzburg | AUSTRIA         http://www.salzburgresearch.at

Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 07:18:51 UTC