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

Re: Review of 'Use Cases and Requirements for Ontology and API for Media Object 1.0', Working Draft 19 January 2009

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 08:25:05 +0900
Message-ID: <49862F51.6010600@w3.org>
To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org, public-media-fragment@w3.org

Hello Michael,

thank you very much for your review.

Michael Hausenblas さんは書きました:
> All,
> As of my action [1] I was appointed to review your Working Draft from 19
> January 2009 regarding 'Use Cases and Requirements for Ontology and API for
> Media Object 1.0'.
> Short version: Nice use cases and good requirements. In order to increase
> readability, the content needs to be improved, esp. sections 1 to 4.
> Full version:
> ===============
>  Major issues
> ===============
> + Add a clear scope paragraph. I learned very late (somewhere in the section
> '1. Introduction') that you are actually mainly targeting videos.


> + Even though I always believed I know my work I was not able to decode:
> 'The "Ontology for Media Object 1.0" will address the intercompatiblity
> problem by providing a common set of properties to define the basic metadata
> needed for media objects and the semantic links between their values in
> different existing vocabularies.'
>  - what is 'intercompatiblity'?
>  - what are media objects?
>  - what are semantic links?

Agree that this can be made clearer.

> + And it continues: 'The scope is mainly video media objects, but we take
> also other media objects into account if their metadata information is
> related to video.'
>  - how related?
>  - which metadata?

For "how related" I would say "if the metadata information can also be 
applied to video, but not only to video, e.g. the creation date". For 
"which medata", this is a question to be answered in the future.

> + The figure in section '3 Purpose of the Ontology and the API' is nice but
> somehow questionable. Do user adapt the API? Do user visualise the API?
> Isn't the ontology itself the API? In which language (formal or logic-based)
> is it defined? What *is* the API?

I think that the paragraph
"An important aspect of the above figure is that everything visualized 
above the API is left to applications, like: languages for simple or 
complex queries, analysis of user preferences (like "preferring movies 
with actor X and suitable for children"), or other mechanisms for 
accessing metadata. The ontology and the API provide merely a basic, 
simple means of interoperability for such applications."
Tries to answer some of your questions.
- Adaptation of the API: if the API is changed it is not the API we will 
have defined anymore.
- Visualize: see "... is left to the application", so "no"
- ontology = API: no, see also
- "in which language ...": see as a potential example, which is neither 
formal nor logic-based
- "what is the API". Again see
As an example of an API specification we are aiming at IMO.

> + Rather than having an almost empty section '4 Terminology' that merely
> refers to RFC2119 you should use this space to define *your* terms (such as
> media object).

Such a section will be part of the API and the ontology specifications.

> + In section '5.6 User generated Metadata' you use RDF/Turtle without any
> warning, hint or reference.

Good point, a warning and references seem to be appropriate.

> + Regarding '6.7 Requirement r07: Introducing several abstraction levels in
> the ontology' I'd say this is an absolute must. 

Do you have any existing implemention we could look at to be able to 
judge the efforts of this?

> If you can't talk about the
> different abstraction layers, I guess the effort is pretty worthless.

At the TPAC meeting in October we had a presentation from a video search 
engine with not more than *five*, "flat" properties, see
I think we saw a metadata mapping which was very useful and worth it, so 
I would disagree with your statement above.

> =================
>  Minor issues
> =================
> + the TOC is not well-formatted, although pubrule-checker [2] seems not to
> complain - rather use use <ol> and <li>

mm ... I checked
and did not see any problems. Could you point me to the markup part 
which you think has a problem?

> + in the section 'B References' the labels of [XGR Image Annotation] and
> [XGR Vocabularies] are mixed up (I think I remember seeing the latter
> document already, somewhere ;)

Good point, to be fixed.

> + you want to go for a W3C Note, right? Then you want to remove the
> '(non-normative)' part in the references. You are not normative, hence as
> well not non-normative.

I had thought so too, but see

> All this said I guess you need a major revision of this WD.

I did not see any comments on the requirements which I think are the 
most important "message" of the WD. Do you think these need a revision 
or are stable? How would you fill the beginning of sec. 6
"This sections describes requirements for the ontology and the API. The 
Working Group has agreed to implement the following requirements. "
"The requirements which the Working Group currently does not have 
agreement to take into account are the following:"


>  I think the UC
> and the requirements as they are present are valuable and convincing, but
> the reader needs more explanation in the beginning. You can't assume that
> everyone has followed your WG-internal discussions and instantly knows what
> you mean by media object or API.
> Tracker, this is ACTION-36 and I'm gonna close it.
> Cheers,
>       Michael
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/media-annot-reqs/,pubrules
Received on Sunday, 1 February 2009 23:25:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:33 UTC