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

RE: Definition of subproperties and way forward

From: Soohong Daniel Park <soohong.park@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:01:59 +0900
To: 'Tobias Bürger' <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>, 'Daniel Park' <soohongp@gmail.com>
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Message-id: <03d201ca6ccb$a2659e50$e730daf0$%park@samsung.com>
Thanks Tobias for the clarification, That's my sense...!


Daniel

------
Soohong Daniel Park
Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D
http://sites.google.com/site/natpt00 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
> annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tobias Burger
> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 9:33 PM
> To: 'Daniel Park'
> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Definition of subproperties and way forward
> 
> +1 from my side as well.
> 
> But as PA suggested, we should consider the necessary "placeholders" in
> case we introduce subproperties in the future.
> 
> Best
> 
> Tobias
> 
> Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:
> >
> > +1, JP
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* public-media-annotation-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Daniel
> Park
> > *Sent:* lundi, 23. novembre 2009 12:39
> > *To:* public-media-annotation@w3.org
> > *Subject:* Definition of subproperties and way forward
> >
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> >
> >
> > We spent too much time for that issue both in Santa Clara and in
> > mailing list. It's time to come up with a direction at this stage I
> > believe. I (chair hat-on) don't have an objection with the summary
> > below from Felix, also, that seems to us very reasonable way for the
> > first step...
> >
> >
> >
> > Call for your opinion, any strong objection ?
> >
> >
> >
> > It will be also discussed finally at upcoming teleconf tomorrow.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> > --
> > Soohong Daniel Park
> > Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D
> > http://sites.google.com/site/natpt00
> >
> > [cut-and-paste]
> >
> > There seems to be one open question to me: Is it OK for us to start
> > work on subproperties although we have not reached our goals even with
> > the simple properties? IMO, we should first for all simple properties
> > - define the API methods (done to some extend)
> > - provide test cases and test suite material (not done at all)
> > - run the tests with at least two implementations
> > so that we can be sure to declare victory, even if we don't get to the
> > sub property part.
> > So I am saying not "no" about sub properties, but postpone work on
> > them until we have done our basic job.
> >
> > Would you and others agree with that?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Felix
> >
> 
> --
> _________________________________________________
> Dr. Tobias Bürger
> 
> STI Innsbruck
> University of Innsbruck, Austria
> http://www.sti-innsbruck.at/
> 
> tobias.buerger@sti2.at
> __________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 24 November 2009 06:02:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 24 November 2009 06:02:44 GMT