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

Re: Status of the API Doc v1.0

From: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:28:14 +0200
Message-ID: <4AA7671E.8060408@cwi.nl>
To: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>
CC: Chris.Poppe@UGent.be, public-media-annotation@w3.org
> What kind of API style is appropriate for our API ?
> 
> a)     Specific API corresponded to each property (e.g. mawg-getCreator(); )
> –      Pro: Enable to provide easy APIs to the developers
> –      Con: Can reduce the flexibility of API because whenever defining 
> the new property, new API should be developed

The set of properties provided by MAWG will be finite and fixed once the 
MA ontology is a rec, so I cannot really see a cons here ...

> b)    Common API for handling all properties via input parameter (e.g. 
> get-mawg-unstructured-value( property-name, …); )
> –      Pro: Can provide the better flexibility
> –      Con: Can provide complex API because of data type of input 
> parameter and return value

I can really see the 'pro' here, with a developer hat-on, I cannot see 
where and why I would use get-mawg-unstructured-value( property-name, 
...) :-(

So my preference is a big a)!

   Raphaël

-- 
Raphaël Troncy
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2009 08:29:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:35 UTC