Re: [w3photo] image regions vocab update

"Benjamin Nowack" <bnowack@appmosphere.com>
>>I think we should, since otherwise inference-capable system will get
>>confused, and think a region is an image that can be displayed - like we
>>talked about earlier.
>I can see three options then:
>- create width and height with domain=Image
>- re-use width and height from Jim's SVG vocab (domain=Resource)
>- create regionWidth and regionHeight with domain=Region
>But there is probably no need for option 1 in the imreg vocabulary. and
>Libby said there will be an "official" image+EXIF schema at w3.org soon,
>which I guess will have width and height props. re-describing jim's width
>and height for the DL version should not change the semantics (what I just
>did. I will change the domain to owl:Thing). Do we need width and height
>for regions at all (re option 3)? It'd be another "boundingbox in 1D", I
>guess..

I'm afraid I've not seen the page (none of that internet thingy - but I
would suggest that height/width of a region wouldn't be particularly useful,
the bounding box is much more relevant.  I'd be happy with option 1.

Cheers,

Jim.

==================================
This is the TEMPORARY discussion list for the W3 Semantic-Photo History
Project. For questions, contact greg@fotonotes.net.

Subscribe Instructions
To:   semantic-photolist-request@unitboy.com
Body: subscribe

Unsubscribe Instructions
To:   semantic-photolist-request@unitboy.com
Body: unsubscribe

Help
To:   semantic-photolist-request@unitboy.com
Body: help

Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2004 05:01:10 UTC