- From: Matt Hammond <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 09:21:11 +0100
- To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>, "Giuseppe Pascale" <giuseppep@opera.com>
- Cc: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Hi Guisseppe, Dan, I agree - dropping "content-item" from the description simplifies things. I believe the use cases proposed so far that use the term "programme" are primarily enabling scenarios built around "programmes" as the definition currently describes them. If any use cases require a definition that also includes these then perhaps we could develop a separate definition for 'content-item'? regards Matt On Tue, 31 May 2011 18:09:43 +0100, Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote: > Hi Matt, thanks for the text proposal. > > So including Dan comment it would read: > > "A "programme" or "content item" comprises a single period of audio > visual content. It is usually expected to be labelled in content > directories or television programme guides as a single entity. This > might include an episode of a television programme, a radio programme, > or a movie." > > I'm not sure we need to say "or content item"; it seems to me that this > would introduce some confusion. I'm also not sure how this relates to > audio only content. I guess a song or an album is not a "programme" > according to this definition even though for some usecases a "movie" and > a "song/album" are equivalent. > > What do you think? > > > /g > On Tue, 31 May 2011 17:43:24 +0200, Matt Hammond > <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote: > >> Hi Dan, >> >> On Tue, 31 May 2011 16:33:09 +0100, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> >> wrote: >> >>> On 31 May 2011 17:22, Matt Hammond <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote: >>>> As suggested in the conference call, here is a suggestion for an >>>> improved >>>> definition of 'programme' for the requirements document: >>>> >>>> A programme or content comprises a single period of audio visual >>>> content. >>> >>> Do you mean "or content item" here? "Content" is usually a mass noun >>> in these discussions, isn't it? >> >> "Content item" does seem more accurate. >> >>>> It is usually expected to be labelled in content directories or >>>> television >>>> programme guides as a single entity. This might include an episode of >>>> a >>>> television programme, a radio programme, or a movie. >>>> >>>> Comments are welcome. >>> >>> Sounds ok to me. Does it fit also with >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/ontologies/programmes/2009-09-07.shtml#Programme >>> as far as you know? >> >> That is a minefield :-) My intention with this definition is probably >> closest to po:broadcast or po:episode. As far as I can tell, none of >> the use cases so far seem to show any need (yet) to distinuish which of >> these two it is. >> >> regards >> >> >> >> Matt > > -- | Matt Hammond | Research Engineer, BBC R&D, Centre House, London | http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2011 08:21:45 UTC