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

AW: [mawg] API discussion

From: Bailer, Werner <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:25:58 +0200
To: "Chris.Poppe@elis.UGent.be" <Chris.Poppe@elis.UGent.be>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD9846F872C7874BB4E0FDF2A61EF09F2E6C00F242@RZJC1EX.jr1.local>
Dear Chris, all,

thanks a lot for your draft and the list of open issues. 

As you mention, some of these issues are relevant across many of the properties. One of them is the free text vs. formal issue for both the actual values of the properties as well as the qualifiers. All of them could be be URIs or free text, and in my opinion there are good reasons supporting both of these options.

Another issue concerns the cardinality of the returned values. In your draft only a single value is returned for many of the properties. As discussed when drafting the strawman API wiki page, we identified the need to return several values at least for those properties qualified by roles; and/or to use role types to filter the request (however, there could several be several actors, authors, etc.). Going further, this issue applies to all descriptive properties when multiple languages are supported, or even all properties, as there could be different (complementary if we are lucky, contradictory otherwise) values for a property from different descriptions of the same resource (e.g. embedded EXIF, external Dublin Core metadata). 

Concerning the duration, it would be nice to support the same temporal addressing capabilities as for temporal fragments, possibly adding the support for edit units which would also be nice for fragments.

Best regards,

> -----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
> annotation-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Chris.Poppe@elis.UGent.be
> Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2009 09:33
> An: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Betreff: [mawg] API discussion
> Dear all,
> regarding my action item 155 I hereby present a list of open problems
> that we are currently facing with the Web IDL API descriptions:
> 1. readonly attribute object contributor getraises (NoValue);
> The return type of the property contributor is currently defined as an
> object containing an identifier and role.
> The question is: how would the contributor be identified? (referring
> to the discussions we had on the Phone Conference)
> The same applies for following properties: creator,rating (to identify
> the responsible person for the rating), copyright (to identify the
> holder of the copyright), license (to identify the organization),
> publisher, targetAudience (to identify the issuer)
> 2. readonly attribute object createDate getraises (NoValue);
> Currently there are no provisions for date types in Web IDL
> 3. readonly attribute object location getraises (NoValue);
> How will we describe a location? (this is a similar problem as problem
> 1)
> 4. readonly attribute unsigned long duration getraises (NoValue);
> how to denote a time interval (current suggestion is to use
> milliseconds)
> 5.   readonly attribute float bitrate getraises (NoValue);
> how to denote bitrate (current suggestion is kbps)
> All comments are welcome
> Kind regards,
> Chris
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 15:27:43 UTC

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