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

Re: [Reminder] Response to your LC Comment -2398 on Media Ontology spec

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:15:20 +0200
Message-ID: <4CB32A08.4010402@w3.org>
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>

Thank you.


Le 11/10/2010 17:10, JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA a écrit :
> I'm fine with your response
> thanks
> best
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Thierry MICHEL [mailto:tmichel@w3.org]
> Enviado el: lunes, 11 de octubre de 2010 10:15
> Para: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Asunto: [Reminder] Response to your LC Comment -2398 on Media Ontology spec
> Dear Jose,
> 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.
> Best,
> Thierry
> Best,
> Thierry
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Dear Jose,
> 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
> opportunity 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.
> Thanks,
> For the Media Annotations Working Group,
> Thierry Michel,
> W3C Team Contact
> 1.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Jun/0074.html
> 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/
> -----------------
> MAWG Resolution:
> -----------------
> As it is mentioned in the Ontology for Media Resource 1.0, Status of
> this Document section; "The Working Group expects to advance this
> specification to Recommendation Status".
> By "our lightweight approach to mappings", I assume that you refer to
> the lack of formal semantics or of (recommendation of) use of OWL
> constructs in the document. Our definition of Ontology is equally
> lightweight: a shared and agreed-upon set of classes and properties. As
> we do not enforce these classes and properties to be modeled in OWL, we
> also described the mappings with as few semantic commitments as
> possible: the mappings can be implemented in XSLT, in Java or whatever
> language/paradigm a user might be interested in. The mappings are
> therefore described in simple prose. An RDF version of the Media
> Ontology is being produced in the Working Group, and an RDF/OWl version
> of the mappings can also be considered, but formal and strong OWL
> constructs are very constraining in semantics, and hard to maintain in a
> consistent manner between vocabularies we have no control over. We
> therefore decided to describe the mappings, still in prose, but with
> reference to the SKOS vocabulary rather than in terms of OWL constraints."
> 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. A future publication of this
> specification may include additional mappings if a need or use case is
> established for these new mappings.
> You will read this statement in the Ontology specification.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/#mapping-table
> To respond to you further email
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Jun/0076.html
> The current mapping tables will be included in the Media Ontology
> Recommendation into a normative section. To keep this list of formats
> open, we also plan to track future mappings in an informative WG Note to
> allow description of mappings for future formats. These mappings may
> serve as input for a future version of a Media Ontology Resources
> specification.
Received on Monday, 11 October 2010 15:15:34 UTC

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