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 10:54:37 +0900
Message-ID: <B4EAD1122C31304099A5CDEA5447210F01908C24@email2>
To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
Cc: "Veronique Malaise" <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>, <public-media-annotation@w3.org>, "Soohong Daniel Park" <soohong.park@samsung.com>
Hi. Jean-Pierre.

You are right. :)
Thanks.

Best regards,
Wonsuk


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evain, Jean-Pierre [mailto:evain@ebu.ch]
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 2:39 AM
> To: 이원석; Veronique Malaise
> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org; Soohong Daniel Park
> Subject: RE : Ontology for Media Entity 1.0 (ISAN)
> 
> 
> 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 Friday, 15 May 2009 01:55:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 May 2009 01:55:20 GMT