On 12/5/13 8:52 AM, Thomas Steiner wrote:
Dear Public-LOD,Thank you all for your very helpful replies. Following your joint arguments, owl:sameAs is _not_ an option then. The most reasonable thing to do seems to introduce some sort of proxy object, on top of which statements can be made. One idea that came to my mind (and I am not yet sure if it is stupid or genius) would be to use the <video> element itself as the proxy object. Rather than making statements about the concrete encodings (i.e., the .mp4 and the .ogv), would it make sense to make statements using the "container" that holds them? Assuming the following Web page located at http://videos.example.org/ with a <video> element with an ID… ======http://videos.example.org/====== <video id="video"> <source src="./video.ogv" type="…"> <source src="./video.mp4" type="…"> </video> =============================== …this would allow me to say… <http://videos.example.org/#video> a ma:MediaResource . <http://videos.example.org/#video> ma:title "Sample Video" . <http://videos.example.org/#video> ma:description "Sample Description" . <http://videos.example.org/#video> ma:locator <http://ex.org/video.mp4> . <http://videos.example.org/#video> ma:locator <http://ex.org/video.ogv> . Regarding the ma:MediaResource, the Media Ontology seems to support this: http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-10/#media-resource. Does this make any sense at all?
Yes.
What do you think?
Just fine :-)
Thanks, Tom
-- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
