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

Re: FW: Initial draft of Use Cases and Requirements for Media Ontology 1.0

From: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:53:56 +0100
Message-ID: <49108C34.3030000@sti2.at>
To: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org, Véronique Malaisé <vmalaise@gmail.com>

Hi Wonsuk and Veronique,

thanks for the draft - looks good!

I read your draft and have some comments about it:

* For 2.1 General overview (2): Context is a critical aspect and I guess
you mix 2 different types of "context" here - the context of the user
who accesses the content and the context in which the content is
embedded. From my point of view, we have something like a deployment
context and a usage context in there.

* 2.1 General: you seperate between physical content and semantic
content. This distinction is not totally clear to me. What do you mean
with physical: the structure and underlying technical representation of
the content? When you get to feelings conveyed: isn't this again about
semantics?

You also state that "The scope of the Media ontology 1.0 is limited to
content description." but name both as being content (see first
sentence): "...its physical content and its semantic content..."
Perhaps you should use terms like structural content descriptions,
technical descriptions and semantic content descriptions?

* 2.4 Tasks: Perhaps some of the groupings could be adapted. For example
Reuse is not alway an editing task, also is Mix an editing task? I would
even put e.g. reuse as a new point: reuse could be identical, could be
adapted, could be reuse by merging two different media elements, etc. /
Personalisation could also be some sort of adaptation

* 3 Use Cases - just wanted to generally mention that the use cases are
on a different level, sometimes we have media specific (video),
classification scheme specific (Tagging), sometimes transport medium
specific (mobile). Perhaps we could group the use cases like this: media
specific use cases and issues / application case specific issues.

* 3.2 (CH) vs 3.5 (Tagging) : In the CH use case you exclude
categorization schemes and vocabularies from the scope ot the ontology,
but in tagging (which is some sort of categorization or better
classification) it is included. What is the general opinion in the
group? Does the tagging use case still fit based on the requirements
with respect to the other use cases?

* A general idea: perhaps we group the requirements according to
different metadata types and then refer to these types in each use case
and in the requirements summary? I have something in mind like the list
you came up at the end of the video use case with different metadata
types which are especially useful to support the tasks for this use case...

Thats all for the moment. I will have a second look at the current draft
later.

Best regards,

Tobias


이원석 schrieb:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Veronique raise the issue of the document format itself.
>
> Please read below email.
>
>  
>
> Best regards,
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Wonsuk Lee, Senior Researcher/Ph.d
> ETRI, Protocol Engineering Center
> 161 Kajong-Dong, Yusong-Gu, Daejeon
> 305-700, South Korea
> Voice  : +82-42-860-4893,
> Fax: +82-42-861-5404
> E-mail : wslee@etri.re.kr <BLOCKED::mailto:wslee@etri.re.kr>,
> wslee@w3.org <BLOCKED::mailto:wslee@w3.org>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  
>
> *From:* Véronique Malaisé [mailto:vmalaise@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 04, 2008 4:57 PM
> *To:* 이원석
> *Cc:* public-media-annotation-request@w3.org; Felix Sasaki; Daniel Park
> *Subject:* Re: Initial draft of Use Cases and Requirements for Media
> Ontology 1.0
>
>  
>
> Dear all,
>
>  
>
> Please note that the format itself of the document is subject to
> discussion, the draft was sent in this format for us to have a rough
> version to reflect upon, but suggestions of redesigning the sections
> are also welcome. The difficulty here is to integrate the top-down
> view with the different use cases, which makes the document more
> complex than [1] for example. So any suggestion in that respect is
> more than welcome!
>
>  
>
> Best regards,
>
> Véronique
>
>  
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-ucr/ 
>
>  
>
> 2008/11/4 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr <mailto:wslee@etri.re.kr>>
>
> Dear all,
>
>  
>
> Please find and review the closed file that is initial draft of Use
> Cases and Requirements for Media Ontology 1.0.
>
> If you have any comments or opinion, please let me know.
>
> It is more than welcome.
>
>  
>
> Thanks.
>
>  
>
> Best regards,
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Wonsuk Lee, Senior Researcher/Ph.d
> ETRI, Protocol Engineering Center
> 161 Kajong-Dong, Yusong-Gu, Daejeon
> 305-700, South Korea
> Voice  : +82-42-860-4893,
> Fax: +82-42-861-5404
> E-mail : wslee@etri.re.kr, wslee@w3.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  
>
>  
>

-- 
_________________________________________________
Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Tobias Bürger

STI Innsbruck
University of Innsbruck, Austria
http://www.sti-innsbruck.at/

tobias.buerger@sti2.at
__________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 18:01:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 November 2008 18:01:17 GMT