- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:59:35 +0100
- To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: Daniel Rubin <rubin@med.stanford.edu>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Actually I meant using multimedia objects to annotate concepts, rather > than the other way around. > > Sorry, reading my email again, it's pretty ambiguous. Which is not to > say that use cases for annotating images and image regions aren't > equally important :) Ah, I misunderstood too. Annotation images, image regions, videos, and video portions, audio, and audio portions --- definitely very much of interest, even if that wasn't what you were asking. Perhaps the difference is minimal: providing typed links between things in effect provides information about both entities. If I say that you work for CCLRC, ... that tells the world a little about you, and a little about CCLRC. So same with concepts? If I say that avalanche.jpg indicates some-skos-scheme-the-concept-of-disaster, ... in some ways I've also annotated the concept is being illustrated by the media object too? Dan
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2007 11:59:45 UTC