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

Re: Media annotations requirements draft

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 01:18:16 +0900
Message-ID: <4953B248.8090904@w3.org>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org

Hi Thierry,

Thierry Michel さんは書きました:
> 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.

Many thanks for pointing out for describing the parameters for 
classifying normative vs. non-normative. What do you or others think: 
which references except RFC 2119 should be normative?

Felix

>
> 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 16:18:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 25 December 2008 16:18:57 GMT