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

Re: Publishing the Mapping Table (was minutes of 2009-03-10 teleconference)

From: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:15:23 +0100
Message-ID: <49BF6A2B.5030602@cwi.nl>
To: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
CC: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Dear all,

> I understand that we can't publish without agreement from the Working 
> Group. I hope that we can have a discussion here or next week on the 
> call. I will also work with Raphael offline and try to reach a consensus.

After a quick chat yesterday with Felix, I have a bit clarified some 
misunderstandings and concerns I had. They can be summarized as follows:
   1) The document needs of course to pass the pubrules [minor since it 
can be easily fixed as Thierry has pointed out]
   2) The document needs to warn the reader that (s)he will find a set 
of mappings established between various multimedia metadata formats with 
XMP as pivot BUT:
   - 2a. that this list of formats is not closed, nor pretend to be 
exhaustive and that the group still looks at rationale for including and 
excluding formats to be considered in the final mapping table;
   - 2b. that the semantics of the mapping is that the two properties 
are somehow related, without further specifying the nature of this 
relationship (i.e. equivalence, sub-property, related, disjoint?, etc.)
   - 2c. that the somehow relatedness might be or might not be transitive
   - 2d: that the rationale behind this relatedness is not explained yet 
but it is the intention of the WG to do so.
   3) The document needs to either present a big table with all formats 
and cross-relationships (*my* preference) or a set of N small tables 
with XMP as pivot. The former has the benefit of providing a larger view 
but might imply the transitivity of the mapping which can be leveraged 
with the warning 2c. The latter has the exact counter argument.

Finally, the reader could comment on any of these mappings (again taken 
with a lot of precaution) and that the WG would expect new potential 
mappings or correction of existing ones with preferably a rationale text 
based on the usage of the formats considered.

Providing all that, I have no objection to publish this document asap, 
though I think it would be good to discuss it in f2f in Barcelona prior 
to the publication.

> " This ontology would help circumventing the current profileration of 
> video metadata formats by providing full or partial translation and 
> mapping between the existing formats."
> this reads to me like that the ontology will provide the mapping, and 
> not the working group note. Also, the discussions during the last weeks 
> about formalizing the mapping within the table sound like that people 
> regard the table as a first step (or a main input) to the ontology.

I agree with that. I see the mapping table as the first step to the 
Media Ontology (thus the req track document), and actually the best 
piece of work done so far in the group.
Best regards.


RaphaŽl Troncy
CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science),
Science Park 123, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093
Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312
Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 09:16:26 UTC

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