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

Re: Media annotations requirements draft

From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:15:35 +0100
Message-ID: <49510EA7.8060002@w3.org>
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org


Hi Felix,

I suggest we should homogenized the external links in the document.

There are cases where the liking is done directly to the resource, as 
for example
<a 
ref="http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/emotion/XGR-emotionml-20081120/">EmotionsML 
1.0</a>,
<a href="http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html">Geolocation API 
specification</a>

In other cases the linking is done indirectly to a reference index as for
<a href="#xmp">XMP</a>


I think we should always use indirect linking and have two sections for 
references. One should be the Normative and the other Informative 
References. We could also use styling to differentiate Normative vs 
Informative.

Here is an example of code for the link


... XMP <a href="#ref-XMP" rel="biblioentry" class="noxref"><span 
class="normref">[XMP]</span></a> ...

with following piece of code for the reference in normative ref section link



<h2 id="refs" > <a name="refs"> References</a></h2>

<h3 id="refs-normative"><a name="refs-normative">Normative
References</a></h3>
<dl>
   <dt><strong><a class="normref" name="ref-XMP">[XMP]</a></strong></dt>
     <dd> <a 
href="http://www.adobe.com/devnet/xmp/pdfs/XMPSpecificationPart2.pdf"><em>XMP 
Specification Part 2 - Standard Schemas.</em></a>", Adobe. 2008. <br>
       This document is available at
       http://www.adobe.com/devnet/xmp/pdfs/XMPSpecificationPart2.pdf.
</a></dd>


Best,

Thierry.



Bailer, Werner wrote:
> Dear Felix, all,
> 
> I've had a look at the draft and I have a few (minor) comments:
> 
> - in the 2nd par. of the introduction there are missing references to
> the XG documents; the question is also if we should list here formats
> that we have not considered in our mapping table (e.g. iTunes XML)
> - 3rd par. of introduction: the formulation "access to selected
> metadata" could be misunderstood, we should make clear that the API will
> allow access to all elements defined by the ontology (which are selected
> elements from different formats)
> - sect. 4: "not" in "MUST not" should be written in uppercase
> - requirement 13 should be requirement r13
> - what is the policy about use of British or American English? Currently
> it's mixed.
> 
> Best regards,
> Werner
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org 
>> [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
>> Felix Sasaki
>> Sent: Freitag, 19. Dezember 2008 18:05
>> To: public-media-annotation@w3.org; public-media-fragment@w3.org
>> Subject: Media annotations requirements draft
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> an update of the media annotations use cases and requirements 
>> draft is at
>> http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-req/mediaont-req.html
>> we are looking forward for feedback until January 12th, and want to
>> publish a first draft on Monday 19th.
>>
>> Have a nice holiday and a good new year.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Felix
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 23 December 2008 16:16:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 December 2008 16:16:25 GMT