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

Re: Proposal for ontology and api structure

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:30:45 +0900
Message-ID: <4917D515.9030506@w3.org>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org

Hi Silvia, all,

Silvia Pfeiffer さんは書きました:
> Hi Felix, all,
> Nice progress!
> I only have a brief comment on the API example.
> I would not attach the API example to the HTML5 video tag. That
> assumes that the annotation is associated to a video file or at least
> to the video tag in some way. I don't think you can assume that from
> the HTML5 standard or from a video file.
> Instead, I would define the API based on having a stand-alone
> annotation file, maybe a RDF file or something.
> And then I would encourage media file formats to encapsulate these
> annotation fields directly into the header of the video files and
> expose these to the video tag in a standard way. This standard way
> could be a javascript API - or maybe preferrably a DOM of its own.
> Just my thoughts on this. It is a difficult issue.

Yes, it is. My impression currently is that we have very different 
opinions on this topic. From the browser point of view, some people 
might even want something like
Element vid = doc.getElementById("MyVid");
that is, even closer alignment with the video tag. I'm not sure yet what 
the way out is here.

Regards, Felix.

> Regards,
> Silvia.
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I have created a proposal for the structure of the ontology and the API. See
>> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-api-1.0/mediaont-api-1.0.html?rev=1.9
>> It would be great to get your feedback on these via mail and / or during
>> the next call (agenda to be provided). Some notes before:
>> - This is only a proposal for the general structure of ontologoy and the
>> API, nothing put in stone, and not a lot of material.
>> - Ontology and API are currently in one draft. The reason is that I
>> think we have agreement that there should be a close alignment between
>> the two, and having one document was an easy way to achieve this.
>> - For the timeline, I mainly would like to discuss this before and at
>> the f2f in Belgium, especially since Raphael is on holiday until then
>> and I know that he already has worked on an ontology, which I think we
>> definitely should take into account.
>> - You might be surprised that the above draft does not contain any
>> formal definition in RDF or a different format. That is on purpose: from
>> the viewpoint of the API, it is sufficient to have for each property a
>> name, an informal description of mappings to existing formats, and the
>> related API methods. The draft contains an example for the createDate
>> property. For other use cases than the API, we might need a more formal
>> description, but I have put the informal one in the center here to see
>> if in that way we can gather the attention of the browser vendor community.
>> - While writing this draft I have not taken the discussion off XMP,
>> transmission.cc or comments on the use cases & requirements document
>> into account. Again this is on purpose, to be able to focus on the API
>> use case - for the time being.
>> Looking forward for your feedback.
>> Regards, Felix
Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 06:31:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:31 UTC