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

Re: RE : Edits of the requirements document - action-85

From: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:00:47 +0900
Message-ID: <ba4134970903170600s7e42a374q1a133ae8bcb4fce0@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Hi Jean-Pierre,

I would propose to send the rewordings to this list and integrate them as
soon as we have consensus on them.

Felix

2009/3/17 Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>

> 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                * Status of this document: it is outdated for this document.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/<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-r%0Aeqs-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<http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-reqs-20090119/#uc-cultural-heritage%0A-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 13:01:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 March 2009 13:01:31 GMT