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: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:28:53 +0900
Message-ID: <4920D6E5.4060506@w3.org>
To: "Christian Timmerer (ITEC)" <christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org

Thank you very much for this information, Christian. So it seems that we 
can go ahead with our liaison by just following each others work. I 
don't see a concrete need for action right now, but please correct me if 
I'm wrong.

Felix

Christian Timmerer (ITEC) さんは書きました:
>
>
> Dear Felix,
>
> On Nov 14, 2008, at 1:41 AM, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>
>> 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.
> Officially, W3C and MPEG have a liaison and I think there's no need to 
> establish something explicitly. However, I'll clarify this at the next 
> meeting in February 2009. On the other hand, MXM WDs are publicly 
> available and so reference software will be open source. Current 
> discussions are coordinated through so-called Ad-hoc Groups (AhGs) 
> which are established in between meetings [1]. For MXM-related issues 
> you may join [2].
>
>> 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?
> The API itself should be open for other technologies but for the 
> reference software we'll use engines that focus on MPEG technologies. 
> Basically, we'll reuse existing reference software from the various 
> MPEG standards. For example, for creating, editing, accessing video 
> metadata the API should be defined in a general way but the 
> implementation (i.e., reference software) will be MPEG-based, let's 
> say. This does not prevent to use MXM and, thus, the API for something 
> else. It's just the current implementation (i.e., reference software) 
> will not support this something else.
>
>> 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.
> I also though this at the beginning but I think the difference can be 
> explained as follows:
>  - presentation ... methods to present it to the user
>  - access ... parsing and getter methods
>  - editing ... setter methods
>  - creating ... general methods to create/serialize the whole thing
>
> Thanks.
> Best regards,
>  -Christian
>
> [1] http://www.chiariglione.org/MPEG/meetings/busan08/busan_ahg.htm
> [2] http://lists.uni-klu.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/gen-sys
>
>>
>>
>> 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 Monday, 17 November 2008 02:29:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 November 2008 02:29:35 GMT