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

RE: Suggestion how to move the mapping table forward

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 10:48:27 +0100
Message-ID: <14AE8514098875488F9FEACD90C747A22777BB@gnvasmail1a.gva.ebu.ch>
To: <Chris.Poppe@UGent.be>, Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>, <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Good to see that we finally recognise the problem ;-) although I would still
suggest that this is done during the next physical meeting considering the
need to consolidate understanding on some of the attributes of sets richer
(although les cryptic) than ID-3.

JP

-----Original Message-----
From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Chris Poppe
Sent: vendredi, 6. mars 2009 10:25
To: 'Tobias Bürger'; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: RE: Suggestion how to move the mapping table forward

I agree with Tobias and think that this can speed up the finalization of the
mapping table.

Kind regards,

Chris Poppe
 
Ghent University - IBBT
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Electronics and Information Systems (ELIS)
Multimedia Lab Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201
B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent
Belgium
 

t: +32 9 33 14959
f: +32 9 33 14896
t secr: +32 9 33 14911
e: chris.poppe@ugent.be
 

 
URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] Namens Tobias Bürger
Verzonden: vrijdag 6 maart 2009 9:52
Aan: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Onderwerp: Suggestion how to move the mapping table forward

Dear all,,

I had a look at the current version of the mapping table again
yesterday. From the discussion we had regarding ID3 I think that not
every mapping is 100% correct or at least leaves room for changes. And
what I also learned is that the meaning of some properties get clearer
when you discuss them with other members of the group.

I think we could improve the mappings if we make small groups to review
the mappings. Each group can pick 1 or 2 formats and then we could
discuss points of the mappings which are not clear.

Having these reviews is necessary if we want to publish the mapping
table, I guess.

Perhaps we agree on small teams in the next telecon to review the
mappings - what do you think?

At the next telecon all group members should have indicated their
preferences via the questionaire, so there would be a basis for the
definition of the groups. We can also then prioritize some formats. So
just an idea...

Best regards,

Tobias

-- 
_________________________________________________
Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Tobias Bürger

STI Innsbruck
University of Innsbruck, Austria
http://www.sti-innsbruck.at/

tobias.buerger@sti2.at
__________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 6 March 2009 09:49:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 6 March 2009 09:49:28 GMT