- From: Tobias Bürger <tobias@tobiasbuerger.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 15:55:46 +0200
- To: tmichel@w3.org
- Cc: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BANLkTi=XG2VpCAy4KXWaXbO3UswzUoWf5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Thierry, as stated in my reply to the minutes of yesterday's telecon, I would definitely - at least try - option 4. Best regards, Tobias 2011/6/8 Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> > All, > > To follow up on Werner email about Last week publication of the major > search engines Google, Microsoft and Yahoo on the schema.org [1] web site > an initiative for vocabularies that include sets of properties for image, > audio and video content. > > > There may be quite some overlaps in the domains of the media schemas they > define there and our Ontology for Media Resources 1.0 [2]. > > Yesterday during the MAWG telecon we have discuss if we should add a > mapping of this media schemas in our Ontology spec as it seems difficult to > ignore it, regarding the major players involved. > > We could: > > 1- Add a mapping in our Ontology (but as these are nomative, this will mean > going back to a 3rd Last Call) and delay our spec which is now ready for CR > publication. > > 2- add a mapping in a future Working Note. > > 3- add a mapping in a future version of Ontology for Media Resources. > Our spec says"The following mappings are established from the Media > Ontology's properties to various multimedia metadata formats. This list of > formats is not closed, nor does it pretend to be exhaustive. A future > version of this specification may include additional mappings if a need or > use case is established for these new mappings." > > 4- have these guys align their schemas to our Media Ontology (let's dream a > second ;-) > > Currently I have no idea how mature/stable is this media schemas (still a > draft or more advanced ?). > > > After a discussion yesterday with Philippe Le Hegaret during the > Interactiuon meeting, I was advised that we should not at this point include > a mapping for this schema in our Spec and follow our publication track to CR > and beyond. We could adopt point 2 or 3 latter. > > This initiative will impact many WGs like RDFa, microformats, HTML, etc... > Therefore W3C will deal with this issue. > > Thierry > > > > [1] http://schema.org/ > [2] > http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/ontology10/CR/mediaont-1.0.html > > > > > -- ___________________________________ Dr. Tobias Bürger http://www.tobiasbuerger.com
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 13:56:16 UTC