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

Dear Wonsuk, Felix, 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.

Please, find below my review for this document. This is a mix of typos I 
have noticed and questions and comments I have ...

For the future versions, could we put them on the web with a proper 
revision number to reference and just distribute URIs instead of (html) 
attachments?

* Abstract: 'ontolgoy' -> ontology

* Status of this document: it is outdated for this document. I think it 
is aimed to be a Working Group Note rather than a Rec.

* Section 1: 'concret' -> concrete

* Section 2.1: Overview
   - The 3 dimensions fall a bit from the sky, making the reading a bit 
dry. Is it possible to add some references showing where these 3 
dimensions come from?
   - The current text contains a lot of questions ... "for us", so I 
guess not meant for the working draft reader. Are they? For example: 
should we keep the sentence: "Taking in consideration what the cognitive 
power of a medium is might help us to distill the basics to be described 
to achieve the widest coverage"? Or should be turn it into something 
like: "Taking in consideration what the cognitive power of a medium is 
enables to distill the basics to be described to achieve the widest 
coverage"?
   - Similarly, the text that describes the 3rd dimension (the task) 
contains numerous questions. Would we like to keep them as it is? It 
seems to me that the text should answer to these questions and not 
exposed to the reader of the document.
   - The last sentence of the 5th paragraph is ambiguous: "The scope of 
the Media ontology 1.0 is limited to content description". Do you mean 
the physical content? the semantic content? both?
   - What means DC at the end of the 6th paragraph? Is there some 
missing text? Is it a reference to the new working drafts of Dublin Core 
that envisages to have wh* relationships? Furthermore, it would be 
interesting to detail which explicit relationships the standards 
mentioned (CIDOC, MPEG-7, WHOS, MF) allow. Is it possible to precise them?
   - In the 6th paragraph: 'witout' -> without; 'connceted' -> connected
Furthermore, I suggest to rephrase the following sentence:
"making links or graphs to connect the different pieces of the 
annotation that belong together is very important for the 
precision/enhancing the search".
   - Is it a requirement of the Media Ontology to enable relation 
relationships?
   - The 7th paragraph contains numerous questions that I guess should 
not be there but answered.

* Section 2.2: Media
   - Do we really consider all the media mentioned?
   - Providing examples would help to understand what do you mean by 
'static', 'interactive', 'fixed', 'mobile', 'realistic', 'abstract', etc.
   - The authors say that "Queries need to be enabled to search on the 
following dimensions:" but then I'm confused. The first two dimensions 
are about the subject matter, the semantic content, which I thought was 
address by the 2nd dimension (context). The 3rd one introduces the 
notion of form of the media. Why not then adding the genre, another 
component that is indispensable in EPG?

* Section 2.3: Context
The text ends abruptly, I guess there is some text missing.

* Section 2.4: Task
   - 'maintaining' -> maintain
   - Add a reference to the canonical processes

* Section 3.1: Video
   - Which video services sites are you considering? Video search 
engines? Video sharing web sites? I think they have different 
requirements ...
   - I do not understand the problem explained in the 2nd and 3rd 
paragraph. What is the task? I guess the task is not to specify what an 
API should return for a particular command ... Getting the songs 
'composed by' Dvorak? Then a full text search will work in both cases.
   - I disagree with the NOTE, as I believe the aim of the Media 
Ontology is to solve the semantic mismatch between the existing formats 
as much as possible.
   - The last paragraph also introduces bad practices. Do not split 
properties (first name, family name, etc.) but just use URIs for 
identifying resources, and you get them for free.
   - The requirements talked about "commonly used properties for 
describing video content, from these different standards". Is it 
possible to detail these properties that should be covered by the Media 
Ontology?

* Section 3.2: Cultural Heritage
   - I like the description of the use case but I do not understand what 
are the requirements. The requirements paragraph does not seem to 
exhibit any particular requirement, or at least, it is not clear to me.

* Section 3.3: Mobile
   - 'foramts' -> formats
   - Interoperability with formats for identification on the Web seems a 
requirement in this use case. Is it possible to list these formats?

* Section 3.4:
   - I don't understand what this use case is about. Is it about 
"Interoperability for IPTV"? I would then suggest this new title.
   - The authors said: "In MPEG-7, there are parts related to this 
problem". Which parts the authors refer to?

* Section 3.5: Tagging
   - I think this use case is partially out of scope. I explained: the 
XG use case covers two sides of the coin. People tag on different 
platforms, and one concern would be to identify uniquely these tags so 
that they can be reused cross platforms. I think this part is out of 
scope for the Media Ontology, and some initiatives such as TagCare deals 
with that problem! The other side of the coin is the properties that 
allow the tagging such as the TAG ontology or MOAT. I think the Media 
Ontology should be interoperable with MOAT.

* Section 3.6: Life Log
   - What is this use case about? Is it possible to describe it in terms 
of the 3 dimensions (media, context, task) like the other use cases?

Hope that helps!
Best regards.

   Raphaël

-- 
Raphaël Troncy
CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science),
Kruislaan 413, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093
Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312
Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/

Received on Friday, 7 November 2008 18:21:22 UTC