- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 11:43:09 +1000
- To: Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>
- Cc: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
2011/5/17 Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>: > Dear all, > Next week we want to vote on moving the Ontology doc to CR. For this reason we need to decide upon the following: > > 1) Relaxing ma:relation, Protagonist: Martin Höffernig > > Decide whether to: > i) Relax the constraint on ma:isRelatedTo, not restricted only to media resources. > or > ii) use rdfs:seeAlso to link associated documents > > 2) Should we change all datatypes for literal and provide definitions for the formats: according to Jean Pierre ? > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011May/0032.html > > 3) Binary metadata formats, Protagonist: Silvia > (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011May/0075.html ) > > i) for OGG example, she can't provide *all* the properties mapping to the properties core set Not in an example Ogg file. > ii) The format been binary formats she can't create an RDF file. No, that's not what I said. I said I can create it but it's not of much use. If you only want to use it as a data description format, I can throw it together in a dash. It just won't be able to be used for parsing any real-world data. > This conflicts with our exit criteria. Should we change those or is Sylvia missing something ? Indeed: am I missing something? Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 01:43:56 UTC