W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > January 2011

Re: RE : [AGENDA] Media Annotations WG Teleconf - 2010-12-21

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:36:43 +0100
Message-ID: <4D2F625B.4020007@liris.cnrs.fr>
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 

* rdfs:comment on AudioTrack

* 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

* rdfs:comment on VideoTrack

* rdfs:comment on depictsFictionalLocation:
   copied from createdIn; should be adapted

* all rdfs:comment on :*Date

* 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)

Received on Thursday, 13 January 2011 20:37:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:45 UTC