W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > September 2010

Response to your LC Comment -2417 on Media Ontology spec

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:59:16 +0200
Message-ID: <4CA2E3C4.9020202@w3.org>
To: renato@iannella.it, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Dear Renato,

The Media Annotations Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent 
[1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Ontlology for Media 
Resource 1.0 published on 08 June 2010.
Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and to send 
us comments.

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.
Please review it carefully and *let us know by email at 
public-media-annotation@w3.org if you agree with it* or not before 
deadline date [09-oct-2010].
In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific 
solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group.
If such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the 
opportunity to raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by 
the Director during the transition of this document to the next stage in 
the W3C Recommendation Track.


For the Media Annotations Working Group,
Thierry Michel,
W3C Team Contact

2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/

MAWG Resolution:

Proposed definition of ma:policy

Thank you for this proposal, we agree that this is better than the 
current definition of ma:policy, which has a policy attribute that can 
be either a string or URI. We will adopt your proposed definition of 
ma:policy, and include your examples to illustrate the use of this property.

- Recommended vocabulary for ma:policy.type

We will add that it is recommended to use a subset of policy related 
terms of the Meta information from the XHTML Vocabulary [1] for 

- Overlap between ma:policy and ma:copyright

We agree with your comment that there is an overlap between ma:copyright 
and the case of using the ma:policy element to express a copyright 
statement. The decision to keep ma:copyright despite this overlap was 
made for reasons of usability and compatibility with current industry 
practice, as discussed by David Singer on the mailing list (see thread 
starting with [2]). Given this requirement, the only option to 
completely avoid overlap would be to define ma:copyright and ma:policy 
as mutually exclusive, which we do not consider a good option, as it 
would rather discourage making use of ma:policy and providing more 
detailed information. ma:copyright and ma:policy can co-exist in an 
annotation to serve different needs, even if they are partially 
overlapping in some cases.

[1] http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab/#
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2010 07:00:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:43 UTC