Re: Expressing complex regions with media fragments - use cases + possible solution

Hi Silvia,

> I actually don't see that as a problem, because they have different
> goals: one is presentational the other is referential. I don't think you
> would share the URLs that you are using for the annotations in a single
> URL, since they actually require the annotations and everything to be
> delivered with them to mean anything, so a link to the full resource
> that has everything it in makes a lot more sense IMHO.

Playing the devil advocate, I think I disagree. I see a lot of value in 
sharing such URI that reference a part of a media in the context of an 
annotation. You said such URI require the annotations, but I would 
object that a web server could decide to do content negotiation on this 
resource and either serve the image (that could have a region 
cropped/highlighted in the browser) or directly the annotation. Whether 
using content negotiation for such a setting is a good idea or not is 
another debate. But in my case, this URI would have the purpose to 
either highlight a part of a media (presentational) or serve the 
annotations that concert this part.

> Why not just reference a SVG directly as the mask description - that's
> much better than a MF URL. After all, it's not about delivering
> fragments for your use case, but about delivering annotations on the
> full resource, IIUC.

Q: SVG mask would work for the temporal dimension?
The annotations are about a part of the media, there is not necessary a 
reason for serving them when requesting the full resource.

   Raphaël

-- 
Raphaël Troncy
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/

Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 11:29:01 UTC