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

[Reminder] Response to your LC Comment -2411 on Media Ontology spec

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:04:08 +0200
Message-ID: <4CB2C4F8.3050507@w3.org>
To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Dear Karen,

The Media Annotations Working Group has responded (see email bellow) to 
the comments you sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the 
Ontlology for Media
Resource 1.0 published on 08 June 2010.

The deadline for responding to our proposal was October 09-oct-2010.
We have not receive any message from you.
If we don't get a response by the end of this week (Saturday 16th 
October), we will consider that you have fully agreed to our proposal.
We can not delay more the publication track of the Ontology for Media
Resource 1.0.




Dear Karen,

The Media Annotations Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent
[1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Ontlology for Media
Resource 1.0 published on 08 June 2010.
Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and to send
us comments.

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.
Please review it carefully and *let us know by email at
public-media-annotation@w3.org if you agree with it* or not before
deadline date [09-oct-2010].
In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific
solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group.
If such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the pportunity
to raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director
during the transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C
Recommendation Track.


For the Media Annotations Working Group,
Thierry Michel,
W3C Team Contact

2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/

MAWG Resolution:

Response to the comments, we have copied your comments and added our
answers to each of them inline ([MA]).

1. The scope of the ontology should be clarified as being stored digital
resources. It should also be made clear whether these resources MUST be
accessible online, or could be offline.
[MA] The scope is not restricted to stored digital resources. The
resources could be offline so there is no restriction on this. This is
clarified in the definition of Media Resource [0].

2. You should add PBCORE (http://pbcore.org) to the list. This is a
metadata set for broadcast media, and I believe it interrelates to the
BBC metadata.
Original broadcast date is key for these materials, as is the name of
the show or series (which can be different from the name of the episode).
[MA] The mappings tables included in the Ontology specification are
established from the Media Ontology's core properties to various
multimedia metadata formats. This list of formats is not closed, nor
does it pretend to be exhaustive.
The MA working Group is open to addition of more metadata formats. If
there are particular metadata formats like Public Broadcasting metadata,
you would like to see included in this specification, please bring your
expertise to the working group and we also invite you to join the Media
Annotations Working Group.
Additionally, the original broadcast date can be expressed with our
ontology as a subtype of the createDate property. The type would be
"broadcast date".

3. There doesn't seem to be much for describing the content of the media.
There is only the description field. I suspect that many media
organizations have a more complex view, and will need for synopsis to be
separate from subjects for the purposes of display. Also, for broadcast
programs with multiple segments, they need a say to say, for example:
0-1 minute Introductions
1-19 minute: Interview with x
19-22 minutes: news segment
22-31 minute: Interview with y
I don't remember if these are already in PBCore.
[MA] The relation property can be used to point to more complex semantic
annotations. E.g., if semantic annotations consist of triples stored in
a separate file, then use ma:relation with the relation equal to
'annotation' and the URI would be the location of the RDF file.
For annotations of multiple segments, different fragments of a media
resource are also considered as media resources. Hence, it is possible
to provide descriptions, keywords, or relation properties for a temporal
fragment of the media resource.

3. You will probably eventually need to include some preservation metadata.
This is especially important for any digital media that have been derived
from physical media. PREMIS is probably overkill.... but you may be able to
pick a few elements from that.
[MA]This is out of our scope. The relation property could be used to
link with preservation metadata if needed.

[0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/#media-resource
Received on Monday, 11 October 2010 08:04:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:39 UTC