W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > April 2010

RE: Revised ontology doc according to the comments from the exports

From: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:09:48 +0900
Message-ID: <B4EAD1122C31304099A5CDEA5447210F01E16CDD@email2>
To: "Veronique Malaise" <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hi. Veronique and all.

@Veronique: sorry for missing this.


Earlier email from Veronique was as below. Please refer this when you review the revised version of ontology doc.


Please find enclosed my proposal of modification of the Media Ontology document. I tried my best to answer the comments of the two reviewers:




As I did not find the type definition of the mapping table clear, and one of the reviewers agreed on that, I changed the specification of the types (and created a small paragraph explaining what the written convention meant). Feel free to change this again if you find it not suitable. And don't hesitate to make any kind of change to the document! I send it via email instead of via svn because the versions I commit on svn tend to be lost in space and no-one ever gets them :) This way is more annoying, my apologies, but safer for me to communicate the content :)


What still needs to be done:

- add a discussion of conformance in the document. In my opinion, we should be very laxist as we want to be able to comply with as many formats as possible, which is stated somewhere in the document. Maybe this statement can be updated and made clearer as a conformance discussion?

- add a paragraph about the task force for implementation, or a description of possible implementations

- answer some comments and questions I had no answer for namely:

1/ "I believe the ma:compression field is surplus. The ma:format field already provides for specifying the codecs used in a media resource. It would not be necessary to duplicate this information in the ma:compression field."

2/"You have definitions but aren't using <dfn>, it would be nice." We have <def> tags, which one is the correct syntax?

3/"Note that as per the Manual of Style it is usually recommended to use title case for titles." -> how do you do that?

4/"The table in 4.1.2 is really hard to read." -> what do you think?

5/"ma:format: if it's always a media type (as the description states) then it should be called ma:mediaType"

6/"Why do you have namedFragments and numTracks but samplingrate, framerate, bitrate?"

7/"Also note that you shouldn't have "Candidate Other Elements" in an LC draft." -> is that so? Should we remove this section then? I like the idea of having an ongoing list...



Best regards,



From: Veronique Malaise [mailto:vmalaise@few.vu.nl] 
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 5:02 PM
To: 이원석
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: Revised ontology doc according to the comments from the exports


Hi all,


I also sent a list of the topics and issues that I did NOT adress in the reviewer's remarks and questions I had for the group, please keep this list (sent in a previous mail to Wonsuk and the other co-editors) in mind when going through the ontology document. I am reacheable on skype, mail and will try to be connected to the IRC right now (sometimes the connection gets lost, I'll try to follow and reconnect when this happens).





On Apr 26, 2010, at 9:55 AM, 이원석 wrote:

Hi. Veronique and all.


Concerning the ontology doc, I updated the HTML file of cvs repository with Veronique’s proposal according to the comments from Robin and Silvia.

[2] is revised version of ontology doc and [3] is diff version between old one [1] and new one [2].


Let’s have discussion for this issues in today meeting.


Best regards,



[1] http://tinyurl.com/2upwfz6

[2] http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html

[3] http://tinyurl.com/38p97gs



Received on Monday, 26 April 2010 09:10:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:37 UTC