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: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:04:39 +0900
Message-ID: <4918F647.5050003@w3.org>
To: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
CC: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>, public-media-annotation@w3.org

Many thanks for these comments, Raphael. Some remarks below.

Raphaël Troncy さんは書きました:
> 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?

This is my bad, due to the delay with the CVS access. The revision is here:
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-req/mediaont-req.html?rev=1.7&content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8


>
> * 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 * Status of this document: it is outdated for this document.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.

I will handle that later for the publication, no need to work on the 
status section.

>
> * 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?

I think that this is the intention.

Felix

> 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
>
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 03:05:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 November 2008 03:05:17 GMT