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: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:57:11 +0900
Message-ID: <B4EAD1122C31304099A5CDEA5447210F01693DF8@email2.etri.info>
To: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>
Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>, Véronique Malaisé <vmalaise@gmail.com>
Hi. Tobias.
Sorry for late response. I was in business trip.

Most of all, thank you so much for valuable comments.
For the part of Top-Down Modelling Approach, Veronique might have better opinions than me.
So I added my opinions inline for only comments of use cases.

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
-------------------------------------------------------------


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tobias Bürger [mailto:tobias.buerger@sti2.at]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 2:54 AM
> To: 이원석
> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org; Véronique Malaisé
> Subject: Re: FW: Initial draft of Use Cases and Requirements for Media
> Ontology 1.0
> 
> 
> 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.

In my point of view, most important thing is to describe appropriate use cases for making the requirements.
After that, if we have many use cases we can consider the grouping issue.

> 
> * 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?

I think CH use case is not mature yet.
So this should be made better with respect to consider this comment.

> 
> * 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...
> 

I think this is good comment.
But I am not exactly sure that how deeply we describe the use case in terms of target metadata for video annotation.

> 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 Monday, 10 November 2008 06:57:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 10 November 2008 06:57:54 GMT