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

RE : Edits of the requirements document - action-85

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:35:29 +0100
Message-ID: <14AE8514098875488F9FEACD90C747A2045A4F@gnvasmail1a.gva.ebu.ch>
To: "Felix Sasaki" <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Dear all, Felix,
 
You maybe remember that I suggested 6 weeks ago that some of the links
regarding TVA and EBU schemas are incorrect.  I had been told that this
would be done later as the document had to be published a.s.a.p ;-). But it
looks like if it is subject to some significant rewording and this might be
the opportunity to correct errors.
 
Felix, who should I send the corrections to. Please advaise.
 
Regards,
 
Jean-Pierre

	-------- Message d'origine-------- 
	De: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org de la part de Veronique
Malaise 
	Date: mar. 17.03.2009 09:29 
	À: Felix Sasaki 
	Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org 
	Objet: Re: Edits of the requirements document - action-85
	
	
	Hi all, 

	I also updated the Cultural Heritage use case, if you have some
comments about it, they are more than welcome of course.

	Best regards,
	Véronique


	On Mar 16, 2009, at 8:01 PM, Felix Sasaki wrote:


		Hi all,
		
		here are the results of editing I did to the requirements
document. See summary of the comments and the edits (marked as "FS") below.
Sorry that this is a long mail, please search for "FS" to see what I did.
See also a diff document to the first public draft at
		http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-req/diff.html

		
		-----------------------------
		Comments from Raphael - to be edited by FS
		-----------------------------
		FS: Most of these were made before the first draft
publication and major rewrite, and I hope all are addressed now.
		
		
		* Status of this document: it is outdated for this document.
I think it is aimed to be a Working Group Note rather than a Rec.
		FS: done for the publication
		
		* Section 1: 'concret' -> concrete
		FS: not in the draft anymore
		
		FS: The whole section 2 is not in the draft anymore, so I
did not go through these comments.
		* Section 2.1: Overview
		 - The 3 dimensions fall a bit from the sky, making the
reading a bit dry. Is it possible to add some references showing where these
3 dimensions come from?
		 - The current text contains a lot of questions ... "for
us", so I guess not meant for the working draft reader. Are they? For
example: should we keep the sentence: "Taking in consideration what the
cognitive power of a medium is might help us to distill the basics to be
described to achieve the widest coverage"? Or should be turn it into
something like: "Taking in consideration what the cognitive power of a
medium is enables to distill the basics to be described to achieve the
widest coverage"?
		 - Similarly, the text that describes the 3rd dimension (the
task) contains numerous questions. Would we like to keep them as it is? It
seems to me that the text should answer to these questions and not exposed
to the reader of the document.
		 - The last sentence of the 5th paragraph is ambiguous: "The
scope of the Media ontology 1.0 is limited to content description". Do you
mean the physical content? the semantic content? both?
		 - What means DC at the end of the 6th paragraph? Is there
some missing text? Is it a reference to the new working drafts of Dublin
Core that envisages to have wh* relationships? Furthermore, it would be
interesting to detail which explicit relationships the standards mentioned
(CIDOC, MPEG-7, WHOS, MF) allow. Is it possible to precise them?
		 - In the 6th paragraph: 'witout' -> without; 'connceted' ->
connected
		Furthermore, I suggest to rephrase the following sentence:
		"making links or graphs to connect the different pieces of
the annotation that belong together is very important for the
precision/enhancing the search".
		 - Is it a requirement of the Media Ontology to enable
relation relationships?
		 - The 7th paragraph contains numerous questions that I
guess should not be there but answered.
		
		* Section 2.2: Media
		 - Do we really consider all the media mentioned?
		 - Providing examples would help to understand what do you
mean by 'static', 'interactive', 'fixed', 'mobile', 'realistic', 'abstract',
etc.
		 - The authors say that "Queries need to be enabled to
search on the following dimensions:" but then I'm confused. The first two
dimensions are about the subject matter, the semantic content, which I
thought was address by the 2nd dimension (context). The 3rd one introduces
the notion of form of the media. Why not then adding the genre, another
component that is indispensable in EPG?
		
		* Section 2.3: Context
		The text ends abruptly, I guess there is some text missing.
		
		* Section 2.4: Task
		 - 'maintaining' -> maintain
		 - Add a reference to the canonical processes
		
		* Section 3.1: Video
		FS: not in the draft anymore
		 - Which video services sites are you considering? Video
search engines? Video sharing web sites? I think they have different
requirements ...
		 - I do not understand the problem explained in the 2nd and
3rd paragraph. What is the task? I guess the task is not to specify what an
API should return for a particular command ... Getting the songs 'composed
by' Dvorak? Then a full text search will work in both cases.
		 - I disagree with the NOTE, as I believe the aim of the
Media Ontology is to solve the semantic mismatch between the existing
formats as much as possible.
		 - The last paragraph also introduces bad practices. Do not
split properties (first name, family name, etc.) but just use URIs for
identifying resources, and you get them for free.
		 - The requirements talked about "commonly used properties
for describing video content, from these different standards". Is it
possible to detail these properties that should be covered by the Media
Ontology?
		
		* Section 3.2: Cultural Heritage
		 - I like the description of the use case but I do not
understand what are the requirements. The requirements paragraph does not
seem to exhibit any particular requirement, or at least, it is not clear to
me.
		FS: the requirements and the use case description have been
rewritten and are worked on again by Veronique currently
		
		* Section 3.3: Mobile
		 - 'foramts' -> formats
		 - Interoperability with formats for identification on the
Web seems a requirement in this use case. Is it possible to list these
formats?
		FS: the whole use case needs to be rewritten. I propose to
do that after the next draft publication.
		
		* Section 3.4:
		FS: section has been dropped
		 - I don't understand what this use case is about. Is it
about "Interoperability for IPTV"? I would then suggest this new title.
		 - The authors said: "In MPEG-7, there are parts related to
this problem". Which parts the authors refer to?
		
		* Section 3.5: Tagging
		FS: section has been dropped
		 - I think this use case is partially out of scope. I
explained: the XG use case covers two sides of the coin. People tag on
different platforms, and one concern would be to identify uniquely these
tags so that they can be reused cross platforms. I think this part is out of
scope for the Media Ontology, and some initiatives such as TagCare deals
with that problem! The other side of the coin is the properties that allow
the tagging such as the TAG ontology or MOAT. I think the Media Ontology
should be interoperable with MOAT.
		
		* Section 3.6: Life Log
		FS: section has been rewritten, could you check again? The 3
dimensions were not used, as in all other cases.
		 - What is this use case about? Is it possible to describe
it in terms of the 3 dimensions (media, context, task) like the other use
cases?
		
		Hope that helps!
		Best regards.
		-----------------------------
		changes proposed from Michael Hausenblas, to be edited by
FS. My remarks are mentioned via "FS" again.
	
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Feb/0006.htm

l
		Hello Michael,
		
		thank you very much for your review.
		
		Michael Hausenblas ????????:
		> 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.
		>   
		
		Agree.
		
		FS: I added a scope paragraph in the abstract and repeated
it in the introduction.
		
		> + 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.
		FS: I rewrote the paragraph:
		"The "Ontology for Media Object 1.0" will address the
problem of heterogeneous metadata for multimedia objects by providing a
common set of properties. It will also help circumventing the current
proliferation of video metadata formats by providing full or partial
translation and mapping between the existing formats. The ontology will be
accompanied by an API that provides uniform access to all elements defined
by the ontology, which are selected elements from different formats."
		
		> + 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
	
http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-req/mediaont-req.html#req-r05

		- "in which language ...": see as a potential example, which
is neither 
		formal nor logic-based
	
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-ElementTraversal-20081222/#interface-elementTr

aversal
		- "what is the API". Again see
		http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-ElementTraversal-20081222/

		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
		http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-mediaann-minutes.html#item01

		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
	
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-r

eqs-20090119/
		and did not see any problems. Could you point me to the
markup part 
		which you think has a problem?
		
		FS: that is fixed now
		
		> + 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.
		FS: 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
	
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2008Dec/0084.htm

l
		
		> 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
	
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-reqs-20090119/#requirements

		"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:"
		
		Felix
		
		>  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

		>
		>   
		
		
		-----------------------------
		Mobile use case, to be edited by probably Tobias
	
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-reqs-20090119/#Mobile

		-----------------------------
	
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-reqs-20090119/#uc-cultural-heritage

-institutions
		Use case "cultural heritage insitutions", to be edited by
Veronique
		-----------------------------
		Comments form Dan Conolly, to be edited by FS later. Could
we check these tomorrow again?
		
		    * please separate objective, testable requirements from
goals/principles Dan Connolly 
		FS: to be done after next call
		    * please use a different label for requirements without
WG support Dan Connolly
		FS: to be done after next call
		
		-----------------------------
		


-----------------------------------------
**************************************************

This email and any files transmitted with it 
are confidential and intended solely for the 
use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. 
If you have received this email in error, 
please notify the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email 
message has been swept by the mailgateway

**************************************************

Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 12:36:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 March 2009 12:36:37 GMT