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 15:29:12 +0900
Message-ID: <B4EAD1122C31304099A5CDEA5447210F01E16796@email2>
To: "Veronique Malaise" <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>, "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
Hi. Veronique.

Thanks for valuable comments J


I added inline comments as below.


From: Veronique Malaise [mailto:vmalaise@few.vu.nl] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 11:48 PM
To: Bailer, Werner
Cc: 이원석; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: Updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting


Dear all,


On Feb 24, 2010, at 3:25 PM, Bailer, Werner wrote:

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


I changed that from the abstract... maybe there is a hidden part of the XML document that still contains this text and that keeps on rewriting the latest version of the abstract?


à In the Seoul F2F meeting, Joakim and I merged two proposal from you and me. At this moment we agreed to keep the earlier simple description. Because simple description could be better for the abstract part(e.g. no examples is better). We thought your proposal for abstract part would be more appropriate for introduction part.

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


yes, I was waiting for the list of the types to add them :)

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


right, so better simplify it all and simply list the types we use, without making a "simple/complex" distinction

à I agreed.

- the editorial note in 4.1.2 should reference annex A

- 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


and there are also geo ontologies: URI should be a valid value; the same goes for other properties, we should not restrict the value to one specific vocabulary, but rather state that URI' and values from constrained vocabularies are preferred.

One question about the types: have not checked yet, but do some properties still have a pair as value? How "processable" is such a format? Is it not too much a burden and shoul dit not be replaced by simple value, with the help of subproperties? Maybe it's the case now, will check. Another point: about frameSize: having two numbers here too is a "hard to process" option (for mapping for example): how about having height/width as subproperties, at least?

- ma:right should be ma:copyright


I changed the ma:copyright to ma:right because of the comments of the PLING people, I thought they were not satisfied with copyright, that they wanted license and rights, but I may be mistaken

à ma:copyright gives more clear meaning to me. And I guess it’s not a big deal. So I would like to keep ma:copyright at this moment. After discussed within the WG, I would like to change according to the result J


Best regards,


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

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

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

- typo: “vocbulary” in the introduction

- typo: cunjuntion -> conjunction in 3.2


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 06:29:50 UTC

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