Re: Next steps

On Aug 20, 2010, at 9:14 , Jens de Smit wrote:

On 19/08/2010 09:49, Hermodsson, Klas wrote:
I think two levels (i.e. [criteria]<>[data]) is too simplistic. I would like to see a three level approach:
[criteria]<>[representation]<>[actual data]

I'm not really seeing this (yet). They way you put it, isn't the
representation implicit in the type of data that's being linked? As in,
if the [actual data] is X3D we're dealing with a "visual" representation
(of the subtype "3D model") and if it's an OGG container with a Vorbis
stream inside it's an "aural" representation, etc.

I may be using some terms that are not really suitable above. Let's take a concrete example to illustrate:

- Company A has a sign with their logo on outside their stores
- When this logo is detected the company wants a spinning sphere with the logo on to be displayed while a music piece is playing
- If you select/activate/click this spinning sphere the latest ad is played back as a video

Criteria: if computer vision detection of the logo occurs (criteria expressed in suitable markup language)
Representation: a spinning sphere + music (layout and resources of this representation expressed in suitable markup language)
Actual data: the video ad (content in specific format stored reached through some URI and over suitable protocol)

If we then consider that one device is a audio only device and one device is a touch display mobile then representation and actual data may change but criteria is the same. I was just thinking about the separation of these three parts. Maybe what I call representation is what other people call data? Note that both representation and data may need "layout" markup to explain how it should appear in our real world.

Best regards,
Klas

Received on Friday, 20 August 2010 14:32:25 UTC