- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:36:43 +0100
- To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
- CC: "mcsuarez@fi.upm.es" <mcsuarez@fi.upm.es>, 'Joakim Söderberg' <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hi Jean-Pierre, below are a few editorial comments on version 26 of the RDF ontology before our discussion tomorrow (well, the last comment is a little more than "editorial", I guess we can talk about it ;). * I'm not sure datatyping all comments with xsd:string has much added value, and it makes the RDF a little less readable, but I can live with that. * rdfs:comment on AudioTrack s/specilaisation/specialisation/ * rdfs:comment on Captioning "on which queries could be made" is a strange comment: queries could be made on any class! I suggest to align it other Track subclasses: "A specialisation of Track for captions" * rdfs:comment on MediaResource s/comsoed/composed/ * rdfs:comment on VideoTrack s/specilaisation/specialisation/ * rdfs:comment on depictsFictionalLocation: copied from createdIn; should be adapted * all rdfs:comment on :*Date s/creationDate.date/date.date/ s/creationDate.type/date.type/ * rdfs:comment on :date should add a comment reading: "corresponds to 'date.date' in the Ontology for Media Resources" * rdfs:comment on numberOfTracks: shouldn't it mention captioning tracks as well? shouldn't we just stick to "number of tracks" * rdfs:range of isFragmentOf: should be MediaResource, if only to be consistent with the domain of hasFragment. Let us not put a too strong ontological commitment (and I still argue that an image can have fragments) pa
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2011 20:37:17 UTC