- From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 10:52:27 +0200
- To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>, "Matt Hammond" <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk>
- Cc: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 10:21:11 +0200, Matt Hammond <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote: > 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'? > fine with me. I'll include your definition, without content item. Of course if someone have comments we can always re-discuss it. /g > > > 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 >> >> > > -- Giuseppe Pascale TV & Connected Devices Opera Software - Sweden
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2011 08:57:02 UTC