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

Re: Response to your LC Comment -2395 on Media API spec

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:17:39 +0200
Message-ID: <4CB6E6D3.9070806@w3.org>
To: James Salsman <jsalsman@talknicer.com>
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>

James,


We need to wrap up this issue in order to allow the MAWG to move forward 
the Media Ontology spec.


Could you please respond to this email and say:

1- that you cancel your initial formal objection.
2- that you agree to the MAWG proposal, that we don't plan to introduce 
quality parameter as we want to keep a simple list of technical properties.


Best,

Thierry



Le 12/10/2010 16:40, Thierry MICHEL a écrit :
> James,
>
> In your latest email (below) to the MAWG response to your comment, you
> say :
>
> 1. You assume that audio will be accessed in PCM format such as
> audio/L16. We just don't understand how you come to this conclusion.
>
> 2- There seem to be many details for video formats in the Media API spec.
> This is not true. For example the size of a video, 8 bits per channel,
> is not specified. Not sure why you also conclude that there are many
> details for video formats in the Media API
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Thierry.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Dear Thierry,
>
>> Thank you also for your second reply below. There seem to be many
>> details for video formats in the Media API spec, but all the audio
>> format parameters seem to assume that audio will be accessed in PCM
>> format such as audio/L16. If that is the intention, then I would ask
>> only that the PCM sample size (e.g., 16 bits) be included as a
>> parameter along with the sampling rate. Is that acceptable?
>
>> Best regards,
>> James Salsman
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote:
>  > Dear James,
>  >
>  > The Media Annotations Working Group has reviewed the comments you
> sent [1]
>  > on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the API 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 [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/0053.html
>
>  > 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20100608
>  >
>  > -----------------------
>  > Resolution of the MAWG:
>  > -----------------------
>  > About your first issue to include audio/x-speex, please refer to our
>  > previous response to your comment about speex and vp8 for the media
> Ontology
>  > specification.
>  > - Speex is a free audio codec for Free Speech, not a multimedia
> *metadata
>  > formats*.
>  >
>  > We don't plan to introduce quality parameter as we want to keep a simple
>  > list of technical properties.
>  >
>  > To respond to your second issue about section 3.12.5 Samplingrate
> interface
>  >
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20100608/#samplingrate-interface
>
>  > The API doc states "no exceptions" at a number of places (for the
> operations
>  > and also for some attributes, which is the case for the
> samplingRate). The
>  > "no exceptions" means that no exceptions are defined when accessing this
>  > attribute. The actual text "no exceptions" in the API doc is generated
>  > automatically based on the Web IDL descriptions. Since no exceptions are
>  > defined on the attributes in our case, this text appears in the
> document.
>  > Note that Web IDL does allow to define exceptions for access of certain
>  > properties (e.g., due to type casting), however we do not include these.
>  >
>  > The API specification does not currently hold a good description of
> why we
>  > do not include exceptions however. Therefore we will add a statement to
>  > clarify it.
>
>
>
> ms
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 11:18:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 14 October 2010 11:18:05 GMT