- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 09:50:28 +0200
- To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
- CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
On 05/07/2011 12:53 PM, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote: > Dear all, > > considering all the recent discussions, why don't we just change all datatypes for literal and provide definitions for the formats. We did it for string and dateTime already. In the case of datatype, unspecifying is really a necessary evil, IMHO. The case of dates was sufficiently compelling to convince me to do it, but I didn't do it gladly. Unless a real practical problem arises with other datatype properties, I'm not in favor of underspecify them. > Something else about the RDF, although I did it, I wonder if: > - Should we remove restrictions on certain properties e.g. valid on image and not audio, etc. We did that some time ago, IIRC, because it required owl:unionOf, which was breaking compliance with simple OWL2 profiles. > - Should we state all these properties at the higher level. mediaResource and sub-classes will inherit them but if these classes are not duly identified, it would allow declaring properties without unnecessary blank nodes and the associated management of dummy identifiers sorry, I don't understand that. Can you give an example? pa
Received on Monday, 9 May 2011 07:50:53 UTC