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

Re: Media annotations requirements draft

From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 16:53:01 +0100
Message-ID: <4953AC5D.3040607@w3.org>
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org

Felix Sasaki wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
> 
> many thanks for spotting this. I agree with you and will make the 
> change. One question: which items would you put in the normative 
> references section, which into non-normative section? I'm asking since 
> the document will probably end up as a non-normative Working Group Note.


I think the publication of the document (Working Group Note or REC is 
orthogonal to the normative / informative refs.  the difference between 
a Working Group Note or a REC is the *endorsement* of the W3C.

Now which items should you put in the normative vs Informative 
references section depends on the level of dependency with the reference.

By default all references should be in the Informative references 
section, but references with strong dependency should be moved to 
normative references section. This should be a must when a reference is 
mentioned within a normative section or paragraph.

In our case, for example "RFC 2119" in  "4. Terminology" section should 
be linked to a normative reference.

Thierry.



> 
> Just for the editors: in XMLSPEC the direct linking is the <loc> element
> <loc 
> href="http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/emotion/XGR-emotionml-20081120/">EmotionsML 
> 1.0</loc>
> the indirect linking is the <bibref> element
> <bibref ref="xmp"/>
> 
> Felix
> 
> 
> Thierry Michel さんは書きました:
>>
>> 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 Thursday, 25 December 2008 15:54:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 25 December 2008 15:54:12 GMT