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

Re: Comments regarding Issue #6113 (data model yes/not) and issue #6169 (structured/flat)

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:40:58 +0900
Message-ID: <492F3E1A.8050900@w3.org>
To: "Ruben Tous (UPC)" <rtous@ac.upc.edu>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org

Hello Ruben,

Ruben Tous (UPC) さんは書きました:
> Dear all,
> as suggested in the last telco, in order to avoid redundancy I've
> linked the main rows of the ontology features discussion table
> (http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/FeaturesTable) to
> open issues
> (http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/issues/open/), mail
> archives
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/) and
> telco minutes. 

That is great work, Ruben, thanks a lot!
I am thinking more and more that your table can be the main input for
our requirements, and the decisions we have to make.

> I've also add a new row for the "fragments description" discussion, as
> suggested by Pierre-A.
> During the telco the discussion about the need to define a reference
> metadata format remained open. I would suggest to separate this
> discussion in two different topics:
> (1) The need to define our own (explicit and formalized) reference
> metadata format: Which I guess is related to open Issue #6113
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2008Sep/0055.html
> (Requirement "Allowing for a simple API, ...")
> (2) Structured/flat: Open Issue #6169
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6169 (requirements on
> the annotation) and other features (polymorphism or not, segments or
> not) which can apply also to the API even if we discard (1).

I agree with your separation. Note also another option which we have not
discussed yet: using an existing format like the XMP RDF format as the
basis. I know it's not real RDF, but it is already being deployed in
many areas, and we said at the F2F we put XMP in the center anyway. What
do you or others think about that?

> My opinion regarding (1) can be summarized as follows:
> - The usage of a common API seems to be the cornerstone of our
> interoperability strategy. As an analogy, I like to think in the way
> the Java bytecode provides platform-independence to applications. In
> our case we provide format-independence.
> - Typical APIs for accessing data use to be related to a data model (a
> data schema to be stricter), in fact the API and the data schema use
> to be someway isomorphic. In our case, as I understand now, we do not
> plan to declare an explicit data schema (e.g. with XML, RDFS or OWL)
> to which the MAWG API refers. However, IMO, the data schema will be
> implicit anyway.
I agree with your two points above.
> - If we have an implicit data model, I do not see any harm in making
> it explicit and formalizing it.
I takes time, and we are already behind our schedule, see
October 2008: FPWD of requirements document

> But, which would be the benefit?
> - Each thing (the API, the associated data schema) have different
> usages. Think for instance in the difference between an XML schema and
> its corresponding JAXB java code.

Good comparison. It reminds me of how hard data binding between an XML
Schema and (java or other) code is ;)

> Concluding: We should select a subset of prioritary use cases (not
> application scenarios). Then we would see if we need an API, a
> reference data schema, or both.

I agree with your approach to decide about the need for a format (not
sure if I agree on the term "reference data schema") via the use cases.
For the API, we have to define it, see again charter:
February 2009: FPWD of "API for Media Object 1.0".


> Best regards,
> Ruben
Received on Friday, 28 November 2008 00:42:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:31 UTC