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

Re: RE : Ontology for Media Entity 1.0 (ISAN)

From: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 21:16:15 +0200
Message-ID: <4A0C6DFF.2080406@sti2.at>
To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
CC: ??? <wslee@etri.re.kr>, Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>, public-media-annotation@w3.org, Soohong Daniel Park <soohong.park@samsung.com>
Dear Jean-Pierre, all

I guess the point you raised is very valid and I share your concerns
about formats to consider.
For me formats in scope should be those that
(a) are used to describe content on the Web today and thus are readily
available to be integrated under one common hood, but also formats that
(b) are used to describe content which is kept in (closed) databases at
the moment but which could be published at some point in time on the Web.

For me it is not a matter of domain-specifity of a format, because one
supposed advantage of our media ontology proposal is the ability to
integrate content coming from multiple domains, even if only few
attributes are shared.

Based on the fact that I do not have much insights into real industrial
practices I cannot say which formats we should take into consideration
based on point (b).

For the broadcasting domain you are most probably one of the few people
who could tell us if a format should be considered relevant. From my
knowledge I think the restriction to TV-Anytime and EBU-Core is valid in
this case.

Best,

Tobias

Evain, Jean-Pierre schrieb:
> 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
>
> **************************************************
>
>
>   

-- 
_________________________________________________
Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Tobias Bürger

STI Innsbruck
University of Innsbruck, Austria
http://www.sti-innsbruck.at/

tobias.buerger@sti2.at
__________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 14 May 2009 19:16:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 14 May 2009 19:16:27 GMT