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

RE : Ontology for Media Entity 1.0 (ISAN)

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 19:38:32 +0200
Message-ID: <14AE8514098875488F9FEACD90C747A24B0823@gnvasmail1a.gva.ebu.ch>
To: "???" <wslee@etri.re.kr>, "Veronique Malaise" <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>, "Soohong Daniel Park" <soohong.park@samsung.com>
Dear Wonsuk,
 
I wish we would have had a discussion about the pertinence of the proposal
before even further finalising the details for implementation (even if for a
future version).  As far as I am concerned, all the points I made in a
previous e-mail are still unanswered open issues.
 
Best regards,
 
Jean-Pierre

	-------- Message d'origine-------- 
	De: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org de la part de ??? 
	Date: jeu. 14.05.2009 18:30 
	À: Veronique Malaise 
	Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org; Soohong Daniel Park 
	Objet: RE: Ontology for Media Entity 1.0 (ISAN)
	
	

	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: ???
	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, ??? 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 ???
	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.

	 

	 

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

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 Thursday, 14 May 2009 17:39:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 14 May 2009 17:39:32 GMT