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

RE : chema.org and our Ontology

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 03:29:29 +0200
To: "tmichel@w3.org" <tmichel@w3.org>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010F5A1BC443@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
I would vote for 3 with the goal of reaching a sufficient level of commonalty.

IPTC and possibly others are 'discussing' with them... We need to establish a link.



De : public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] de la part de Thierry MICHEL [tmichel@w3.org]
Date d'envoi : mercredi, 8. juin 2011 15:44
 : public-media-annotation@w3.org
Objet : chema.org and our Ontology


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.


[1] http://schema.org/
Received on Thursday, 9 June 2011 01:31:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:48 UTC