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

RE: RE : RE : Edits of the requirements document

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:47:07 +0100
Message-ID: <14AE8514098875488F9FEACD90C747A2045A5B@gnvasmail1a.gva.ebu.ch>
To: "Felix Sasaki" <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
These are my comments, which concern only Annex B

 

TV-Anytime

[replace the text and link with] The specifications and schemas can be
downloaded free of charge from
http://www.etsi.org/WebSite/Standards/StandardsDownload.aspx 

 

EBU P-META

[replace the text and link with] European Broadcasting Union specification
2007. Available at http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3295v2.pdf 

 

You may want to add:

 

EBU Core

European Broadcasting Union specification 2008. Available at
http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3293-2008.pdf 

 

 

 

 

From: felix.sasaki@googlemail.com [mailto:felix.sasaki@googlemail.com] On
Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
Sent: mardi, 17. mars 2009 14:44
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: RE : RE : Edits of the requirements document - action-85

 

 

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 20:48:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 March 2009 20:48:02 GMT