RE: Update API document

Dear all,

 

I have some remarks on the current API document. The current web service description does not really correspond to the API, meaning in the API one method is defined that allows to retrieve the values of a property, with parameters: propertyname, sourceformat, subtype, language, and fragment. These optional arguments are now not resembled by the webservice. 

 

Moreover, the methods for setting the context are ignored.

 

The methods for iterating also do not include all parameters.

 

Lastly, the example of getting the contributors using the webservice does not return the correct values I think. (Now the different roles are returned, instead it should return pairs of identifiers and roles).

 

 

I also think that both documents (ontology and api) are closely related so I am in favor of publishing them with the same publishing schedule.

 

Kind regards,


Chris

 

 

From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
Sent: maandag 1 maart 2010 12:34
To: ???
Cc: Daniel Park; Joakim Söderberg; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: Update API document

 

 

2010/3/1 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>

Dear Chairs and all,

In the Seoul F2F meeting, we decided to publish ontology doc asap. 

How about publication schedule of API doc?

If possible, We should try to publish both docs with same publication schedule from now on, because both are quite closely related.


+1.

Best, Felix 

If someone read our draft, two docs are not synchronized with each other. It would be wired ;)

 

Best regards,

Wonsuk.

 

From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 이원석
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 12:03 AM
To: Felix Sasaki; Chris.Poppe@ugent.be


Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org

Subject: RE: Update API document

 

Hi. Felix, Chris and all.

Most of all, thanks for Felix and Chris’s revision.

I updated the API doc with Felix’s file. In addition I commit two files(XML and HTML) from Felix to the CVS repository. Because I guess Thierry is on the trip at this moment ;)

So you can take a look at the last version of API doc via below link.

http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-api-1.0/mediaont-api-1.0.html

 

Best regards,

Wonsuk.

 

From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 9:20 PM
To: Chris.Poppe@ugent.be
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: Update API document

 

Hi Chris, all,

2010/2/25 Chris Poppe <chris.poppe@ugent.be>

Now I really changed the subject of the mail so that people are not confused.

Kind regards,
Chris
-- 
Ghent University - Multimedia Lab
Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 41
B-9000 Ghent, Belgium

tel: +32 9 264 89 17
fax: +32 9 264 35 94
e-mail: Chris.Poppe@ugent.be

URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be




---------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht ----------
From: "Chris Poppe" <chris.poppe@ugent.be>
To: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:25:40 +0100
Subject: RE: Updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting
Dear all,

please find attached an updated version of the API document (both xml file and html file) (I am having troubles to upload this).

Felix, after you add your updates could you please upload this?




I made the updates, but unfortunately I am also currently not able to commit to CVS. Thierry, could you do that? See

http://fabday.fh-potsdam.de/~sasaki/mawg/ma-api-doc-20100226.zip <http://fabday.fh-potsdam.de/%7Esasaki/mawg/ma-api-doc-20100226.zip> 

The ZIP-File contains an HTML-version of the draft, the XML-source, and a diff between Chris' version and mine, to show you my edits. If there are further comments today, I can make another editing round tonight. Btw., I changed some of the non-webservice examples, since the output seemed inconsistent, e.g. the writing conventions for DOMString result types are not always the same. Also a question: should we have one convention for properties names with multiple words, e.g. "named fragments"? I would propose to use small caps and a hyphen always, e.g. "named-fragments". What do people think?

Best,

Felix

 


Current changes:
added subtypes/roles
added information on the use of the API (two use case scenarios)
created new interface to hold language attribute.
created new interface to hold uri, sourceformat, fragmentidentifier and mappingtype
Updated the document with information on how to use the subtypes


Kind regards,
Chris

-- 
Ghent University - Multimedia Lab
Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 41
B-9000 Ghent, Belgium

tel: +32 9 264 89 17
fax: +32 9 264 35 94
e-mail: Chris.Poppe@ugent.be

URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be