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

RE: Updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting

From: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:05:59 +0900
Message-ID: <B4EAD1122C31304099A5CDEA5447210F01E16795@email2>
To: "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Dear Werner.

Thanks for your good comments J


I added inline comments as below.


From: Bailer, Werner [mailto:werner.bailer@joanneum.at] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 11:25 PM
To: 이원석
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: RE: Updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting


Dear Wonsuk, all,


Thanks for the new draft, I think it is a major improvement. 


However, I have a few comments:


- in the abstract it says we define “semantics-preserving”: the introduction states correctly that this cannot always be achieved – so it should be removed from the abstract

à how about “syntactic and semantic level mappings” instead of “semantics-preserving mappings” ?


- section 3.1: shouldn’t we list for completeness also string, float and integer and refer to definitions we are using

à Agreed


- section 3.2: we are currently not using any complex type definitions in the table, esp. not the person example given

à I would like to remove this part.


- the editorial note in 4.1.2 should reference annex A

à Agreed


- ma:location: I’m not an expert in this, but afaik there are different coordinate systems for geolocation, so we should add a string for the coordinate system to the log/lat/alt triple

à I am not sure at this moment, but I added geoLocation:String to Data type column of ma:location row. Is it right?


- ma:right should be ma:copyright

à Agreed.


- Annex A: I think discovery of tracks can be dropped, this is resolved by the redefinition of ma:fragment

à Agreed. Could you propose the draft of redefinition ? It would be great J


- Annex A: I think including the references we have in the Wiki for each of the issues could be useful

à Agreed.



- Annex C: I’ve asked that before: are really all references normative? E.g. MPEG-21 that we consider not in scope

à Agreed.


- typo: “vocbulary” in the introduction

- typo: cunjuntion -> conjunction in 3.2

à Agreed.


Best regards,



Best regards,



From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ???
Sent: Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2010 09:36
To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting


below is the updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting.

Please review and if you have any comment, let me know.




best regards,



Received on Friday, 26 February 2010 06:06:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:36 UTC