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: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:41:51 +0900
Message-ID: <491CC94F.5080503@w3.org>
To: "Christian Timmerer (ITEC)" <christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org

Hello Christian, all,

Thank you very much for making us aware of this discussion. I agree that 
we should try to be compatible as much as possible. Regarding declaring 
a liaison, from the W3C side there is no problem, as long as we don't 
have formal requirements on the liaison. Just participate in the 
discussions on this list. I don't know about the ISO side though.

Just a few questions below. I have taken a look at
http://www.chiariglione.org/MPEG/working_documents/mpeg-m/pt2.zip
which says
"The APIs are made available to applications by means of MXM Engines. 
Each Engine (e.g. the MediaFramework Engine) provides access to a single 
MPEG technology (e.g. video coding) or to a group of MPEG technologies 
where this is convenient."
Does this mean that this API focuses on interoperabiltiy of MPEG 
technologies?

Also, in e.g. sec. 6.8 "Video Metadata Engine APIs" I saw a seperation 
in Video Metadata Creation, Video Metadata Editing, Video Metadata 
Access and Video Metadata Presentation. Isn't there a lot of overlap to 
be expected between these? E.g. for editing I need access.

Felix


Christian Timmerer (ITEC) さんは書きました:
>
> Dear Felix, all,
> sorry for late reply and I'd like to draw your attention to the MPEG 
> Extensible Middleware (MXM) which aims to define APIs enabling 
> applications to access standard multimedia technologies (including 
> metadata). Note that within this standard we will also produce 
> reference software which will be available under an open source 
> license. Requirements, working drafts, and a proposal for the MXM 
> public license is publicly available under [1].
>
> You may find some parts thereof interesting, especially the APIs 
> related to metadata for image, audio, video, and content in general. 
> We may also collaborate (e.g., via liaisons) in order to stay 
> compatible the one way or the other.
>
> Thank you.
> Best regards,
> -Christian
>
> [1] http://www.chiariglione.org/MPEG/working_documents.htm#MPEG-M
>
> On Nov 10, 2008, at 6:29 AM, Felix Sasaki 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 Friday, 14 November 2008 00:42:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 14 November 2008 00:42:32 GMT