- From: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:07:26 +0200
- To: "Christian Timmerer (ITEC)" <christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at>
- CC: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Dear Christian, > First of all, I don't have any objections as long as it serves the > purpose. However, it would be nice to have the reasons for not adopting > existing other standards (such as MPEG-21 FID) somewhere documented on > the wiki. I fully agree. Our documents are still in an early stage, but indeed, the reason why we did this technological survey is for assessing what schemes already exist and why we need to develop Media Fragments. In a nutshell, because there is a need coming from use cases, because there are ad-hoc solutions currently deployed on the web but not standardized (à la Google), because there are standardized (or half-standardized) schemes but not really deployed (and we want to better understand why FID has never take off, too complex?), etc. > Btw. in the current draft on Media Fragments URI I wonder whether > there's any difference between a segment and a fragment. Good question! I admit this is poorly documented currently. The idea is that a segment is the abstract notion. Extracting a segment from a media could become a fragment if done in-context (i.e. using the #) or could become a entire new resource (i.e. using the ?) if done out-of-context which can still be linked to its parent resource. We will better document that in our 2nd round of publication, hopefully coming in one month. Cheers. Raphaël -- Raphaël Troncy EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department 2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France. e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2009 13:08:20 UTC