W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > December 2008

Re: UC & Req document template proposal

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:01:50 +0900
Message-ID: <493604AE.3040601@w3.org>
To: soohong.park@samsung.com
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>

Daniel Park さんは書きました:
> Haha...you confused the call time. Anyhow, thanks your good job on the
> format of document.
>
> At the last call, we had a straw poll for this format proposed by you
> and got a clear consensus to accept this change.
>
> But, still contributors should try to increase the quality of each use
> case with more text...
>

Absolutetly! The main reason for the format creation was to make it
easier for contributors to do that. I think what we need now is

- check if the requirements at
http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-req/mediaont-req.html#requirements
are OK (do we need more, less, different ones, merging?)
- bring sec. 2.1-2.4 in a similar shape as sec. 2.5-2.8.
- potentially more use cases in more subsections of sec.2

Looking forward for volunteers (not necessarily the inital creators of
the section) who want to create "spec ready" text for sec. 2.1-2.4 or
further subesctions of sec. 2 :)

Felix

> Thanks,
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> ------- *Original Message* -------
> *Sender* : Felix Sasaki<fsasaki@w3.org>
> *Date* : Dec 02, 2008 22:45 (GMT+09:00)
> *Title* : UC & Req document template proposal
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry for the late notice ... I did a very rapid editing of the uc & req
> document, see
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-req/mediaont-req.html
>
> My goal was to develop the template I I had proposed at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2008Nov/0100.html
>
> and to implement it for some examples. I also integreated requirements
> derived from the feature table from Ruben. Everthing is very simple:
>
> - Use cases have:
> Use case summary
> Related requirements
> Description / Example
>
> - Requirements have:
> Description
> Rationale
> Target (API and / or ontology)
>
> - Application scenarios are not here yet, and I took out the "top-down"
> section, since it is currently very unrelated to uc or requirements. But
> we can take it later in again.
>
> I worked on the following requirements to implement the pattern I am
> thinking of:
>
> 2.5 Recommendation across different media types
> <http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-req/mediaont-req.html#uc-recommendations-across-media-types>
>
> 2.6 Life Log
> <http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-req/mediaont-req.html#uc-life-log>
>
> 2.7 Access via web client to metadata in heterogenous formats
> <http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-req/mediaont-req.html#uc-access-via-web-client>
>
> 2.8 Metadata exchange
> <http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-req/mediaont-req.html#uc-metadata-exchange>
>
>
> What I want to propose now is that Veronique and Wonsuk stop to produce
> text, but that we distribute the work within the group, and ask the
> people to produce text that follows the pattern very closely. That will
> lower the burden of the editors, who mainly put the text proposals into
> the draft. When we publish we will have authors (people who produce
> "spec ready" text), and editors (Veronique and Wonsuk).
>
> Note that it is common in other working groups (though not all) that
> editors mainly implemented text proposals from other WG participants, or
> from people outside the WG.
>
> I had talked to the editors and co-chairs about this, and Daniel asked
> me to present proposal during todays call.
>
> Felix
>
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2008 04:02:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 3 December 2008 04:02:36 GMT