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

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

From: <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:46:59 +0100
Message-ID: <1226310419.491803131a5e3@www.few.vu.nl>
To: Raphaƫl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Cc: ģ“ģ›ģ„ <wslee@etri.re.kr>, public-media-annotation@w3.org, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>

Dear all,

Thank you very much Raphael for these extensive comments! Indeed the questions 
were not intended to be left in the later version of the Note (and I did not 
change the preambule part as Felix said that we should focus only on the content 
as for now), but were directed to our group's members, to get people's opinion 
and clarification about the different mentioned points. 
And you are perfectly right that we should put the document online and refer to 
its URL, but so far I could not get the CVS environment running, my bad! Wonsuk, 
if you were more successful, could you take care of putting the draft at the 
right place and send around the URL? Thanks a lot and sorry about the delay 
(just got a Mac and I'm trying to figure out what is missing in the environment 
that I have!)!

Best regards,
Vero 

Quoting Raphaƫl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>:

> 
> 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 * Status of this document: it is outdated for this document.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.
> 
>    Raphaƫl
> 
> -- 
> Raphaƫl 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 Monday, 10 November 2008 09:47:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 10 November 2008 09:47:43 GMT