W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > December 2009

RE: Review of UC & Req

From: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:13:40 +0900
Message-ID: <B4EAD1122C31304099A5CDEA5447210F01B5821E@email2>
To: "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hi. Werner
Thanks for good comments.

My opinions are as below.
In addition, I think we need to make an consistency with ontology and API doc. E.g we need to use the term of media resource.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
> annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bailer, Werner
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 3:37 AM
> To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: Review of UC & Req
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Please find below my comments on the current working draft of the use
> cases and requirements document.
> 
> 1 Introduction:
> 
> - "providing full or partial translation and mapping between the existing
> formats": actually not between, but from the formats to the properties in
> the ontology

Agreed. But I would like to suggest new one as below. :)
"providing full or partial translation and mapping from properties in formats to a common set of properties in the ontology." What do you think?
	
> - " API that provides uniform access to all elements defined by the
> ontology, which are selected elements from different formats": I suggest
> to drop the last part of the sentence, that sounds like taking property 1
> from DC, property 2 from EXIF, etc

Agreed.

 
> 3 Purpose:
> 
> - Same comment as for the introduction: the example talks about mapping
> XMP to IPTC.
> 
> 6 Requirements:
> 
> - as discussed in the telecon on Nov. 24, the requirements on policy
> information from PLING and the requirements from MFWG concerning discovery
> of named and track fragments should be added, and linked with the use
> cases, e.g. 5.2, 5.3, 5.4
> 
> - we should also discuss how the policy requirement is related to our r09.
> NB: "role" has nothing to do with subproperties in this context ;-)
> 
> - I think that r05 and r11 are related, as r05 actually describes the core
> slice. So in my opinion we could either state r11, and describe some of
> the slices, or we define separate requirements for each of the slices (as
> it is done in r05).

+1 for separate requirements.

Best regards,
Wonsuk.

> - Given the consensus reached in the group, I think that we could move r12
> and r13 to the agreed requirements.
> 
> Best regards,
> Werner
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Werner Bailer
>   Institute of Information Systems
>   JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
>   Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
> 
>   phone:  +43-316-876-1218               mobile: +43-699-1876-1218
>   web:    http://www.joanneum.at/iis        fax: +43-316-876-1191
>   e-mail: mailto:werner.bailer@joanneum.at
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 10:14:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 1 December 2009 10:14:15 GMT