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

Re: Status of the API Doc v1.0

From: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:31:13 +0200
Message-ID: <ba4134970909090231hc013d60v98fc547d0d462f4b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Raphal Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Cc: (wrong string) 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>, Chris.Poppe@ugent.be, public-media-annotation@w3.org
2009/9/9 Raphal Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>

> 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)!
>


+1.

Felix



>
>  Raphal
>
> --
> Raphal Troncy
> EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
> 2229, route des Crtes, 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/ <http://www.cwi.nl/%7Etroncy/>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2009 09:31:49 UTC

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