RE: Review of ontology draft

Hi. Felix.

Thank you for the valuable comments.

I agreed.

 

Best regards,

Wonsuk

 

From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:22 AM
To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Review of ontology draft

 

Hi all,

this is my review of the ontology draft. Mostly very small editoral comments, but one non-editoral comment at the end.

"This document defines ontology that consists of a core vocabulary, which is a common set of properties to describe the basic metadata needed for media entities, and the semantic links between their values in different existing vocabularies. This ontology helps the programs to support the interoperability among the various kinds of metadata formats related to media entities on the Web."
change "defines ontology" to "defines an ontology"

In the status section you need to add
"The Working Group expects to advance this specification to Recommendation <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#RecsW3C>  Status."
after "which is part of the W3C Video on the Web Activity <http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/> .".

This link
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/42357/status
should be
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/42786/status

At "This document defines the "Ontology for Media Object 1.0"." and potentially at other places: Be careful to replace "Object" with "Entity".

"The semantic links of the ontology defines the interrelations between the properties in different formats. For example the property <http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html#property>  dc:creator from Dublin Core <http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html#dc>  can be mapped to the property <http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html#property>  artist defined in EXIF <http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html#exif> ."
Change this to
"The semantic links of the ontology define the interrelations between the properties in different formats. For example the property <http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html#property>  dc:creator from Dublin Core <http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html#dc>  can be mapped to the property <http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html#property>  artist defined in EXIF <http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html#exif> ."

Do we still need this note?
"This list needs to be brought in sync with the mapping table."

General: there are some broken links you need to repair, see
http://tinyurl.com/r4gh9f

change "in FRBR(" to "in FRBR ("

change "representationwith" to "representation with"

change "propertiesof" to "properties of"

I would change "The following table lists identifiers which are used to identify formats in this specification." to "The following table lists identifiers which are used as prefixes to identify formats in this specification."

Non-editorial comment: You are defining value types and syntactic mapping, but the mapping table does not contain information about these (except cablelabs1.0). I think it would be useful to have a column in the mapping table about syntactic information, providing information like at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime-lexical-representation
or like "what character encoding is possible to use?" or "string length" (see cablelaps 1.0 for examples). All low level information, but useful to capture IMO.
So proposal not for now but for after the publication: Add a row like that. If we do that we can refer from the property value types definition section to it. 
For now, I would add a note after
"Syntactic level mappings declare the correspondence between two semantically equivalent properties but with a different syntactic expression. It's most evident case is the date formatting, but some others may appear."
Like
"Currently the mapping table for most of the formats does not contain information about syntactic mapping".

That's all! At the end I just can repeat what I said before: This is great progress, and I am looking forward for more.

Best,

Felix