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

Re: Next call

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:08:58 +0900
Message-ID: <48F4A7FA.6020204@w3.org>
To: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
CC: nack@uva.nl, public-media-annotation@w3.org

Hello Frank and Rapahel,

thank you very much for your analysis which agree with mostly. I am 
wondering only and probably again if the way to achieve the properties 
which Rapahel mentioned could also , in addition to the "top down", 
"Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records" like approach, a 
"bottom up" approach which I think David mentioned at
I am also wondering if we could start work on the API already, and meet 
in the middle. See
*6113* <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6113> Requirement 
"Allowing for a simple API, abstraction in the ontology, and a clear 
mediation inbetween"

I would also be very happy to volunteer for this.


Raphaël Troncy さんは書きました:
> Dear All,
>> The variety of use cases in combination with their internal overlap
>> (e.g. larger parts of the 'mobile' use case can also be covered by the
>> 'adaptation' and 'presentation' use cases) suggests that a different
>> approach might be more useful, namely the analysis versus different
>> trajectories:
> I second Frank's analysis. I think I have used a slightly different 
> terminology during our last phone call, but I meant roughly the same 
> thing, i.e. I called that different dimensions (or views) through 
> which we need to look at the problems. These dimensions are orthogonal 
> so to speak and should not be exclusive or opposed to each other.
>> * the media trajectory: which media particularities do we have to
>> describe so that humans can be supported in their working processes. The
>> media are different in their expression strength (e.g. visuals are
>> strong on their denotative power, where audio or haptics are better in
>> stimulating feelings, text is stong on paradigmatic processes). Taking
>> in consideration what the cognitive power of a medium is might help us
>> to destil the basics to be described to achieve the widest coverage.
> As Frank said, one of these dimension is the media (image, audio, 
> video) and by extension the modality covered.
>> * the context trajectory: which information elements are necessary to
>> achieve the correct context? In the 'mobile' scenario this means: we
>> think about what is essential about location and once that is clear we
>> determine how that can be minimally described so that a larger variety
>> of processes/actions can be performed (I assume we do not model the
>> processes but rather design metadata that allow them (the applications)
>> to access the appropriate material).
> Exactly, defining the boundaries of the various contexts we consider 
> and determining which metadata properties should be modeled is one of 
> our outstanding issues. I had the feeling that brainstorming on 
> possible scenarios / use cases was a way to achieve this.
>> * the task trajectory: how should, whatever we design, support the
>> processes users perform on and with media? Here the questions are:
>> - which processes (e.g. search, manipulation, generation, .....) would
>> we like to support?
>> - do we make a distinction between general and specific tasks (general
>> are those that can be found in a number of task processes, such as 
>> search)?
> What would be a specific task? Could you give an example?
>> - do we have to model the process or is it enough to provide structures
>> so that this process can be performed?
> The later.
>> Based on the above we might be able to establish a 'content trajectory'
>> with the aim to establish a basic semantic core set of 'tags'.
> I would avoid the term 'tag' in this context and would recommend to 
> use the term 'description property' or simply 'property'.
>> Finally, during our discussions about the various use cases we already
>> saw that there are more general concepts / processes to be described
>> (search is one of them) and then quite specific ones. The question we
>> would have to answer is - do we actually wish to go into the details or
>> rather leave that to the domains - so that we define a basic semantic
>> layer that can be used by everybody, enabling the definition of detailed
>> substructures underneath (aiming for particular applications).
>> Not sure what you think about that but look forward to hearing your 
>> opinion.
>> I can try to work these ideas out in a bit more detail for the face to
>> face in Cannes if the group thinks that is worthwhile..
> I think this is the way to go ...
> Best regards.
>   Raphaël
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2008 14:09:43 UTC

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