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

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

From: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:43:41 +0900
Message-ID: <ba4134970903170643m3eb5ca06ie3d9b7f9ebf2e3cc@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
Cc: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
2009/3/17 Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>

> Do we need consensus to repair broken links and reference to websites or
> names of specifications ;-)


Hi Jean-Pierre,

sure, of course we don't :) . Please send the parts to be changed to the
editors: veronique, tobias, wonsuk and me.

Best,

Felix



>
>
>
>
>        -------- Message d'origine--------
>        De: felix.sasaki@googlemail.com de la part de Felix Sasaki
>        Date: mar. 17.03.2009 14:00
>        À: Evain, Jean-Pierre
>        Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
>        Objet: Re: RE : Edits of the requirements document - action-85
>
>
>        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/<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-%0Ar%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-heritag
> e%0A-institutions<http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-reqs-20090119/#uc-cultural-heritag%0Ae%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 13:44:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 March 2009 13:44:24 GMT