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

RE: Ontology for Media Entity 1.0 (ISAN)

From: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 01:30:44 +0900
Message-ID: <B4EAD1122C31304099A5CDEA5447210F01908C14@email2>
To: "Veronique Malaise" <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>, "Soohong Daniel Park" <soohong.park@samsung.com>
Hi. Veronique.

I think I understood your original email. J

I guess we want to go the same direction, but we think a little bit different approach.

 

According to the schedule, we have to publish the first working draft of ontology doc asap. 

So my intention is to handle a new format in only next version of ontology doc.

Because it means that we don’t need to do anything on the current ontology doc.

 

I think your intention is to handle a new format with subsection of ontology doc.

I added inline commets about your questions.

 

From: Veronique Malaise [mailto:vmalaise@few.vu.nl] 
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:16 PM
To: 이원석
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org; Soohong Daniel Park
Subject: Re: Ontology for Media Entity 1.0 (ISAN)

 

Hi.

 

On May 14, 2009, at 10:31 AM, 이원석 wrote:





Hi. Veronique.

 

I am sorry I don’t exactly understand the meaning of “in another section” you said.

Sorry to have been unclear. IMO the list of formats "in scope" for the media ontology 1.0 are the formats that are now in the mapping table. If other formats are judged to be relevant, then we should make a subsection: in scope and taken into account in the first mapping table, in scope and not taken into account in the first mapping table. We then need to define the rationale of why some formats are taken into account while others are not: here Jean-Pierre's answer is very relevant: we can define sets of properties that are likely to be found on Internet vs properties unlikely to be found on Internet; we also have the vote for the "major formats" that has taken place to explain the fact that some formats are taken into account as priority.



Yes. I got it.

this idea could be one of approach.

 

 

IMO I guess if we decide to add ISAN to in-scope, we can reflect this to all part of ontology doc that are related with ISAN.

what would be "all parts of ontology doc that are related with ISAN"?

It means that when we want to add a new format to ontology doc, some parts have to be revised.

for example, 1.2 Formats in scope, Identifiers of formats, Description of approach for the property definitions, The mapping table, etc





Because we will release just first draft for ontology doc.

what do you mean with "we can reflect the changes because we will release just a first draft of the ontology document"?
It means that we are initial stage, so we can just add a new format to the second publication of ontology doc.

 

 

But even if we decide to add this, the appropriate timing is not now but the second publication.

why would that be, if it is just about adding one subsection and one reference to the document, plus the rationale of taking some formats into account now and some later in the mapping effort?

Yes. Your idea could be one of solution.

But my intention is to handle a new format in only next version of ontology doc.

 

Best regards,

Wonsuk

 

Anyway firstly we need to discuss about ISAN.

sure

 

Best regards,

Véronique



 

Best regards,

Wonsuk

 

From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Veronique Malaise
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 5:08 PM
To: Soohong Daniel Park
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: Ontology for Media Entity 1.0 (ISAN)

 

 

On May 14, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Soohong Daniel Park wrote:






In-scope format, isn’t it ISAN in-scope ?

I don't see this format in the mapping table; we keep all the formats from the mapping table as "in scope", if others should be taken into account in a later stage, we should list them and mention it in the document, but in another section. 

 

 

Best,

Véronique




 

 

-----

Soohong Daniel Park

Standard Architect, blog.naver.com/natpt

DMC Business, Samsung Electronics. KOREA

 

From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 이원석
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 7:20 PM
To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Ontology for Media Entity 1.0

 

Dear all,

 

[1] is the current version for Ontology doc.

Missing piece is the updated version of mapping table.

 

If you have any comments, please let me know.

 

[1] http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html


 

Best regards,

Wonsuk.

 

 

Received on Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:31:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:31:32 GMT