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

minutes of 2009-09-15 teleconference

From: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:01:40 +0200
Message-ID: <4AAF9034.2030402@cwi.nl>
To: Media Annotation <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
All,

The minutes are available for review at 
http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-mediaann-minutes.html
Cheers.

   RaphaŽl

----
    [1]W3C
       [1] http://www.w3.org/
             Media Annotations Working Group Teleconference
15 Sep 2009
    [2]Agenda
       [2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Sep/0033.html
    See also: [3]IRC log
       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-mediaann-irc
Attendees
    Present
           Joakim, Chris, Florian, Raphael, Veronique, Pierre_Antoine,
           Thierry, Wonsuk, Daniel
    Regrets
           Tobias, Werner, Felix
    Chair
           Joakim
    Scribe
           raphael
Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]1. Admin
          2. [6]2. Action items
          3. [7]3. Status of First WD of API
          4. [8]4. AOB
      * [9]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________



    <trackbot> Date: 15 September 2009

    <florian> Zakim aaee is me

    <scribe> Scribe: raphael

    <scribe> scribenick: raphael

1. Admin

    <joakim> [10]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/08-mediaann-minutes.html

      [10] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/08-mediaann-minutes.html

    Proposal to accept minutes of last week telecon

    No objections, minutes accepted

    <pchampin> i volunteer

    Pierre Antoine volunteered for scribing next week meeting

2. Action items

    <joakim>
    [11]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/open

      [11] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/open

    ACTION-124?

    <trackbot> ACTION-124 -- Felix Sasaki to check - everybody
    responsible for a format: add a column describing syntactic
    information ("data types", see cable lab column "Type") to his table
    -- due 2009-06-16 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [12]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/124

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/124

    <scribe> -- ongoing

    ACTION-134?

    <trackbot> ACTION-134 -- David Singer to revise e-mail on
    issues/updates of property description -- due 2009-07-02 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [13]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/134

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/134

    <scribe> -- ongoing

    ACTION-135?

    <trackbot> ACTION-135 -- David Singer to update description of
    location to represent shot location -- due 2009-07-02 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/135

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/135

    <scribe> -- ongoing

    ACTION-136?

    <trackbot> ACTION-136 -- Joakim SŲderberg to will refine the
    subtypes, like ma:contributor, ma:publisher etc. -- due 2009-07-02
    -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/136

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/136

    Joakim: I put a link on the wiki

    close ACTION-136

    <trackbot> ACTION-136 Will refine the subtypes, like ma:contributor,
    ma:publisher etc. closed

    ACTION-148?

    <trackbot> ACTION-148 -- WonSuk Lee to start work and collaboration
    on the API draft document -- due 2009-07-03 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/148

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/148

    Wonsuk: you have all received the email from Florian about the
    issues
    ... I suggest we discuss these issues

    Joakim: we will discuss them in the next agenda item, we can close
    this AP

    close ACTION-148

    <trackbot> ACTION-148 Start work and collaboration on the API draft
    document closed

    ACTION-151?

    <trackbot> ACTION-151 -- Werner Bailer to formulate an answer on the
    feed back from PFWG (Protocols and Formats WG) -- due 2009-09-08 --
    OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/151

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/151

    Werner did that and we sent our review

    close ACTION-151

    <trackbot> ACTION-151 Formulate an answer on the feed back from PFWG
    (Protocols and Formats WG) closed

    ACTION-152

    ACTION-152?

    <trackbot> ACTION-152 -- Thierry Michel to look into web idl with
    victor and others -- due 2009-09-15 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/152

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/152

    Thierry: i start a thread discussion,
    [19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009
    Sep/0035.html
    ... Victor confirmed that WebIDL could be used, as we do video on
    the web
    ... no bindings for C++, but more tailored to web based applications
    so fit our purpose
    ... webidl is anyway close to idl

      [19] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Sep/0035.html

    <pchampin> +1

    close ACTION-152

    <trackbot> ACTION-152 Look into web idl with victor and others
    closed

    ACTION-153?

    <trackbot> ACTION-153 -- Joakim SŲderberg to look into comments from
    werner on PFWG review -- due 2009-09-15 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/153

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/153

    Joakim: this action is connected to 151

    close ACTION-153

    <trackbot> ACTION-153 Look into comments from werner on PFWG review
    closed

    ACTION-154?

    <trackbot> ACTION-154 -- Joakim SŲderberg to ask dave about the
    relationship of digital data exchange with Apple stuff, ID3,
    iTunesXML, etc -- due 2009-09-15 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/154

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/154

    Joakim: I have sent an email but didn't get any answer
    ... leave it open

    <scribe> -- ongoing

3. Status of First WD of API

    <joakim> I think this initial draft is a good starting point. But
    there are a few major things, i am wondering about:

    <joakim> a) what about using interfaces as Victor proposed in
    [$1\47]?

    <joakim> b) did we choose one of the two possibilities for the API
    already (specific vs. common)? AFAIK only a few of us discussed
    these two different approaches [$1\47].

    <joakim> c) the datatypes are only "placeholder" for the finite
    datatypes, or? Because some of them do not fit their purpose i
    guess.

    <joakim> d) as Victor already pointed out, WebIDL is in scope of our
    group, so we should bring this discussion to an end and use it...

    <joakim> I think we have to discuss this draft more closely in
    todays telecon.

    <florian>
    [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009
    Sep/0037.html

      [22] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Sep/0037.html

    Wonsuk: I haven't received many feedback yet on my document apart
    from Florian
    ... you can look at the API description (descriptive properties,
    identification, creator, content, etc)
    ... it includes the get and the set methods

    it describes the interfaces based on toy implementation

    Wonsuk: I suggest we discuss the issues mentioned in this document

    Joakim: you want to discuss the categorization of the properties?

    <chris> this classification conforms to the current mapping table

    Wonsuk: do you have any questions about this?

    [silence]

    Joakim: is this categorization so important ?

    Document from Victor:
    [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009
    Aug/att-0007/magw-idl.pdf

      [23] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Aug/att-0007/magw-idl.pdf

    Document from Wonsuk: replace_URL

    s/replace_URL/[24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-a
    nnotation/2009Sep/0037.html

      [24] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Sep/0037.html

    Could we please avoid to send documents to individual people? I will
    remind that this group operates under public, so use the public
    mailing list

    <florian> +1 raphael

    Joakim: now, we need to discuss the datatypes

    Wonsuk: the meaning of the RESULT is ... [to complete]

    Joakim: should we have a section discussing the return types?

    Wonsuk: yes perhaps, we have String, RESULT, List, Date

    <chris> URI

    <joakim> I guess it means: sucessful/unsuccesfull

    Wonsuk: trying to explain again what RESULT is ...
    ... it means we can parse the result ? (syntactically correct?)

    <pchampin> RESULT is what is sometimes called 'status', right?

    <joakim> while (RESULT)

    Wonsuk: yes, for while and if, we can use RESULT, so looks like a
    boolean evaluation

    <joakim> I agree

    <joakim> 3. Data type Description

    <joakim> 4. API Description

    Wonsuk: discussion about identificatin of the co-editors

    Joakim: Chris, Florian, Werner, Victor?, Wonsuk: who is working on
    the sections 3 and 4?
    ... is it clear ? Perhaps someone should work on the datatypes, and
    someone else on the API

    Chris: we haven't divided yet the work as you suggested
    ... Wonsuk has made this first draft but we haven't discussed it yet
    among the editors
    ... now is the first time we discuss it
    ... I will comment it from now on

    Joakim: my suggestion is to divide the work and not introduce
    bottlenecks

    Chris: yes, I can live with that

    <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to discuss another question about
    datatypes

    Pierre Antoine: I'm not quite sure it is safe to split the work
    between datatypes and API

    scribe: my proposal would be to split between properties which have
    structured values as results versus non-structured
    ... I think this has been mentioned on the list
    ... but I haven't read yet the follow-up of this dicussion or any
    decision

    <florian> +1

    scribe: I would vote for this way of splitting

    Raphael: +1 for PA proposal

    Chris: We haven't formally defined which properties should have a
    structured or non-structured values
    ... we have discussed that briefly at the last f2f, but we wanted to
    provide examples
    ... so we can decide which properties will get structured values or
    unstructured values

    <joakim>
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/ontology10/WD
    /summary.html

      [25] 
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/ontology10/WD/summary.html

    Chris: as far as I know, it is undecided yet for the properties

    <pchampin> I think it is a pre-requisite to working on the actual
    API

    <scribe> ACTION: chris and co-editors (wonsuk, florian, victor,
    werner) to come up for a proposal for a return type for all
    properties, i.e. structured or unstructured? [recorded in
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-mediaann-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-155 - And co-editors (wonsuk, florian,
    victor, werner) to come up for a proposal for a return type for all
    properties, i.e. structured or unstructured? [on Chris Poppe - due
    2009-09-22].

    <joakim>
    [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009
    Aug/att-0007/magw-idl.pdf

      [27] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Aug/att-0007/magw-idl.pdf

    Joakim: in your email Florian, you reference a proposal from Victor

    Florian: this is an IDL example yes

    Raphael: can we transform this same example into WebIDL?

    Florian: I think we haven't yet discussed enough Victor's proposal?
    ... how could we continue to discuss it?

    <pchampin> from the WebIDL draft: "An interface is a specification
    of a set of interface members"

    <pchampin> so it seems that WebIDL has interfaces as well

    <pchampin> +1 for 1 method per property

    Raphael: +1 too

    Joakim: our idea is to indeed use WebIDL now
    ... How can we really be sure that the API will work?

    Florian: should we build a reference implementation
    ... that complements the abstract API documentation

    <pchampin> I think Joakim rather means "test cases"

    Florian: in the same spirit that the MPEG one

    Joakim: who should provide reference implementation

    Raphael: there is no rules for that

    <pchampin> if the reference implementations have to pass the same
    test-cases, does this mean that they have to be in the same
    language?

    yes pchampin

    Thierry: as raphael said, all W3C spec should go through
    implementations that pass test cases testing all features of the
    spec

    Raphael: I suggest you look at the test cases developed by the Media
    Fragments WG as an example

    <pchampin> I plan to update my toy implementation as well

    Raphael: Media Fragments WG test cases:
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/TestCases

      [28] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/TestCases

    <pchampin> but it's in python, which I don't think will be the final
    language

    <pchampin> hence my question...

    pchampin, the language used for the implementation does not matter

    the test cases should specify, if you encounter feature a, what
    should you do, and how can you test it does the right thing

    Wonsuk: if we use WebIDL for the API draft, do we have enough time
    given that we have not really experts from this group
    ... it is just my concern

    Joakim: i will forward the question to the editors, Chris, do you
    think it is doable?

    Chris: I think it is, since WebIDL is anyway very close to IDL
    ... I'm not (yet) a WebIDL expert

    Raphael: I will remind that Doug Shelpers said that folks from his
    group would be happy to help us if we are stuck

    Joakim: next meeting, we can discuss which datatypes to use for each
    properties

    Pierre Antoine: I voted for one method per property, I think it is
    easier to work with

    scribe: maybe for some properties, we will give the choice to the
    developer to use a simple or a structured value
    ... and in this case, we might provide 2 methods OR a parameter

    Joakim: thanks for your thoughts

4. AOB

    [silence]

    Joakim: meeting, next Tuesday

    <pchampin> bye

    [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: chris and co-editors (wonsuk, florian, victor, werner)
    to come up for a proposal for a return type for all properties, i.e.
    structured or unstructured? [recorded in
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-mediaann-minutes.html#action01]

    [End of minutes]


-- 
RaphaŽl Troncy
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des CrÍtes, 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 Tuesday, 15 September 2009 13:02:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 September 2009 13:02:30 GMT