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

Re: Intro and 'use cases'

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:52:08 +0900
Message-ID: <48D99D48.6080401@w3.org>
To: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
CC: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>, public-media-annotation@w3.org

Hi Raphael, all,

Raphaël Troncy さんは書きました:
> Dear all,
> Thanks David, I mostly agree with what you wrote.
> Some comments inlined.
>>> There are two solutions, perhaps, to this problem: (a) relate all 
>>> media annotation systems by means of a firm semantic background, so 
>>> that a machine translator can do the best it can ('the tag called 
>>> title is the formal_name of the work', 'the tag called author is the 
>>> formal_name of the person who created the words of the work'); (b) 
>>> have a small set of tags which we encourage should be implemented in 
>>> any standard.
>>> We prefer (b) now; (a) is a research project, not a standards 
>>> activity. As a basis here, we'd like to consider the 
>>> very-commonly-used ID3 tags (to the extent that they are defined).
>> Our charter
>> http://www.w3.org/2008/01/media-annotations-wg.html
>> says that we ought to develop a "simple lingua franca" between 
>> existing standards. I translate "simple" into "also useable *as is*", 
>> that is into what you describe as (b). I also agree that we should 
>> concentrate on (b), and I think there is a some agreement in this 
>> group about that. What do others think?
> I'm not sure I agree with this distinction. How will you classify the 
> RDF Schema of Dublin Core (DC) [1]? How will you classifiy the IPTC 
> Photo Metadata Standard [2] that does contain a formal definition of 
> the properties as well as particular implementations (NAR, XMP)?
> I think we want to do something between a) and b).

One aspect missing in this discussion is the API we are supposed to 
deliver. Based upon input from Philippe with whom I talked about this, I 
think we need to deliver something which is easy applicable within the 
API. If on the other hand the ontology is more abstract that is fine, as 
long as the mapping to simple terms within the API is clear.

I have marked this as a new requirement issue 6113 , linking to this 
thread: allowing for a simple API, abstraction in the ontology, and a 
clear meditation inbetween.


> ID3 is a good and bad example: the format does not enforce the meaning 
> of specific properties, and anyone can add new properties. But there 
> is a de facto set of properties commonly used, and this is your b) 
> approach. However, users do not consistently used the properties. For 
> example, when you need to describe your classical music songs, you 
> don't know if you should only use the 'author' property, or add a 
> 'composer', 'performer', etc property. There is hence interop problem 
> with ID3.
> The MMSEM XG has proposed a formal definition of the most commonly 
> used ID3 tags [3] using the Music Ontology [4]. This is the a) approach.
> My 2c.
>   Raphaël
> [1] http://dublincore.org/2003/03/24/dces
> [2] 
> http://www.iptc.org/std/photometadata/2008/specification/IPTC-PhotoMetadata-2008_1.pdf 
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/mmsem/XGR-interoperability/#music
> [4] http://musicontology.com/
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2008 01:52:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:30 UTC