- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 09:00:39 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Bernhard Haslhofer <bernhard.haslhofer@univie.ac.at>
- cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Simon Rainer <Rainer.Simon@ait.ac.at>
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Bernhard Haslhofer wrote:
> Since it is hardly possible to address all possible segment shapes in a
> fragment identification specification, we propose to introduce a new
> fragment key/value pair for the spatial dimension, which enables
> fragment identification by reference. The key could be "ptr", "ref" or
> something similar and the value a URI. The URI points to a resource,
> which provides further information about the properties of the spatial
> region/segment.
>
> For example:
>
> http://www.example.com/map1.jpg#ref=http://www.example.com/region/1 addresses a complex segment (polygon) in a map (image)
>
> http://www.example.com/video1.avi#t=10,20&ref=http://www.example.com/region/2 addresses a complex segment (ellipse) within a video sequence
>
> We propose to leave the interpretation of by-reference fragments to the
> client. In our annotation use cases this information will typically be
> delivered as part of the annotation RDF document and the fragment nodes
> (http://www.example.com/region/1, http://www.example.com/region/2) will
> have types (e.g., xyz:SVGFragment, xyz:MPEG7Fragment, etc.) assigned
> that indicate how to correctly interpret the information. If clients do
> not understand the used fragment identification type, they can still
> fallback and at least display the annotation for the full media object.
And the main issue is... what happens when the content pointed by 'ref'
changes over time, or disappear?
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 13:00:45 UTC