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

Re: [mawg] Re: ACTION-177: API at client/server side (was: Call for Test Cases)

From: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:18:38 +0900
Message-ID: <ba4134970911110318v50f2cc3bo7f503fbb81d3d7ce@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
Cc: Pierre-Antoine <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hello Werner,

sounds all very reasonable arguments to me. Is there a proposal for the
structure of the function, and how will it relate to the API descriptions we
have already? Maybe you can answer the question on a prototypical example
like the "creator" property
http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-api-1.0/#creators

Thanks,

Felix

2009/11/11 Bailer, Werner <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>

> Dear Pierre-Antoine,
>
> we had a discussion about this issue at the F2F, triggered by comments from
> Doug Schepers. The arguments for having one function are
>
> - browser vendors only need to implement one function to support the API
> - it might be convenient for web developers to query several properties by
> defining an array with property names and iterate over it
> - extensibility, both to new properties, but also wrt to subtypes, e.g.
> when we define a subtype "albumTitle" of title one could directly query for
> it, instead of using a filter on getTitle
>
> Best reagrds,
> Werner
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [
> public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] im Auftrag von Pierre-Antoine [
> pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr]
> Gesendet: Montag, 09. November 2009 21:36
> An: Silvia Pfeiffer; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Betreff: Re: [mawg]  Re: ACTION-177: API at client/server side (was: Call
>  for Test Cases)
>
> Le 08/11/2009 03:43, Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit :
> > BTW: re javascript API: It should be a small number of functions, not
> > one per property ("getTitle" seemed to indicate to me that there was a
> > particular API function for it). If it turns out you need more than
> > one, that's fine. Just not one per property (which, incidentally, is
> > also more extensible).
>
> except for the point of extensibility, which I understand, could you
> elaborate on the rationale for "Just not one per property"?
>
> Although there has to be a generic function for the sake of
> extensibility, I think the general feeling of the group was that it is
> more convenient for a developer to write
>  getTitle(...)
> than
>  getProperty("title", ...)
>
>  pa
>
> >
> > I will keep watching the progress of the group - I am also subscribed.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Silvia.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Bailer, Werner
> > <werner.bailer@joanneum.at> wrote:
> >> Dear Silvia, all,
> >>
> >> thanks for your mail, you are asking a very good question. In fact, we
> discussed about that yesterday before you joined, resulting in an action to
> visualise the options we discussed.
> >>
> >> Attached is a sketch showing two options:
> >>
> >> 1. implementation as Javascript interface in the browser, requiring also
> all the functionality for extracting metadata from the source formats and
> for mapping there (I think this is the option you are discussing in your
> mail)
> >>
> >> 2. implementation as a web service, accessing either remote or local
> (e.g. database of a portal in proprietary format) media resources and
> metadata, there could be an (optional) Javascript library that provides the
> same API interfaces and handles the calls to the web service
> >>
> >> Feedback is of course highly welcome.
> >>
> >> Concerning the two proposals:
> >>
> >> - single function: no final decision, but it is very to likely
> >>
> >> - other formats: we have already done the mappings for QuickTime, we
> should do it for the others you mentioned
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Werner
> >>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> Von: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [
> public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] im Auftrag von Silvia Pfeiffer [
> silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com]
> >> Gesendet: Samstag, 07. November 2009 01:11
> >> An: Joakim Söderberg
> >> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> >> Betreff: Re: Call for Test Cases
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I was going to ask some questions that emerged over the last hour, but
> >> unfortunately it seems the group has finished meeting.
> >>
> >> I have a question about where you are going to use the API that you're
> >> defining. One suggestion that I heard was as a javascript interface to
> >> the metadata available in a video/audio file referenced in a <video>
> >> or <audio> element of HTML5.
> >>
> >> Is this indeed something you are contemplating?
> >>
> >> In this case, it would be great to have:
> >> * a single function and not multiple to access the metadata,
> >> and
> >> * analysis of the metadata used in to QuickTime, Ogg, MPEG4, FLV and
> >> whether it matches with the API.
> >>
> >> I'd be happy to help promote the generic function into HTML5 when the
> >> spec is finalised.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Silvia.
> >>
> >>
> >> 2009/11/6 Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>:
> >>> Hello everyone,
> >>>
> >>> As a result of the 5th F2F meeting in Santa Clara we have started to
> define
> >>> our test suite
> >>> requirements (
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/TestSuite).
> >>> We kindly ask the workgroup participants for some more example test
> cases!
> >>> We came up with some example test cases:
> >>>
> >>> 1) getTitle
> >>> The API should deal with the situation that
> >>>  1) there is no title
> >>>  2) there are multiple titles (that all come from different metadata
> >>> formats)
> >>>  3) multiple types of title (such as Album title, Song title)
> >>>
> >>> 2) Make sure that the API can get additional metadata that are referred
> to
> >>> in the embedded metadata
> >>> ex. An XMP description referring to another metadata document ( a
> license
> >>> etc.)
> >>> 3) For the Ontology
> >>> Take two metadata resources that represent the same thing and make sure
> that
> >>> the API return the same values.
> >>>
> >>> 4) Write something in the wrong way, fake a metadata format that is not
> >>> valid with a metadata specification and see what the API should do with
> it,
> >>> return in anyway, or not return it at all.
> >>>
> >>> 5) Combination example
> >>> Get the value of the title and then filter
> >>>
> >>> Asking for a generic property like title, then filter the result to get
> just
> >>> the album title,
> >>> and second directly ask for Album title and compare the results.
> >>>
> >>> See more at:
> >>> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/TestSuite
> >>> Regards
> >>> Joakim Söderberg
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2009 11:19:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 11 November 2009 11:19:12 GMT