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: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:52:10 +0900
Message-ID: <4918F35A.7030503@w3.org>
To: Ruben Tous <rtous@ac.upc.edu>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org

Ruben Tous さんは書きました:
>
> Dear Felix, Silvia, all,
>
> Nice progress. Regarding the API example, I agree with Silvia in
> having an example decoupled from HTML5.

I agree with not being coupled to HTML 5, and have changed the API
example in sec. 5.1:

Element vid = doc.getElementById("MyVid");
Metadata o2 = vid.getMetadata();
o2.getCreateDate();



> Maybe it is a naive idea, but why not making an API independent from
> the metadata embodiment (language and binding) and using just an URI
> to refer to the media object or fragment?

we could have a method
o2.load("blurp2.xmp");
for reading metadata.

Felix

>
> By the way, I've uploaded a preliminary version of the Digital Imaging
> Lifecycle UC to the wiki. I'm still working with Jaime and Victor on
> it, but this way you can check its state and give us some feedback.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ruben
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Silvia Pfeiffer"
> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
> To: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>
> Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 8:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Proposal for ontology and api structure
>
>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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");
>>> vid.getCreateDate();
>>> that is, even closer alignment with the video tag. I'm not sure yet
>>> what the
>>> way out is here.
>>
>> That would require the video tag to expose a javascript API with that
>> functionality. But where does the video tag get that information from?
>> It can either come from within the video file (where in turn you
>> require an API towards the video) or it comes from an external file
>> that is related to the video (e.g. a RDF file) through another
>> attribute.
>>
>> I agree that such a functionality would be nice to have. But it's up
>> to the HTML5 WG to define this API, really. All we can define here is
>> the API to the annotation file or propose an API into the video
>> formats that include the annotation tags inside themselves.
>>
>> That's all I was thinking.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Silvia.
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 02:52:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 November 2008 02:52:49 GMT