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

RE: Action Points

From: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 23:19:14 +0900
Message-ID: <B4EAD1122C31304099A5CDEA5447210F02138D69@email2>
To: Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>, <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hi. Joakim and all,

Concerning to the ACTION-280, I already applied Joakim's proposal to the ontology doc.
It's ok to me.

Best regards,
Wonsuk.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
> annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joakim Soderberg
> Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 7:31 PM
> To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: Action Points
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> Accept my regrets for next telecon. Here is the status of my action points:
> 
> ACTION-280 - I have sent suggestion to Wonsuk. If he accepts, then close
> action
> 
> ACTION-289 - to remove Section 5 Conformance Requirements,DONE!
> 
> ACTION-298 - Contact WebIDL
> 
> Below is the response regarding REST bindings for WebIDL, from Robin and
> Barstow:
> 
> I am unsure that this is a topic that the HCG can do much about, though
> naturally I'd be happy to discuss it here. The DAP WG has been looking
> into this issue in a low-intensity fashion. The use cases there are
> similar to those that I believe MAWG has - namely to define a JS API and
> have Just WorkT as an over-the-wire protocol.
> 
> WebIDL is essentially a mix of a schema language and a protocol definition
> language (i.e. it does both attributes and operations); something that it
> inherits from its OMG IDL ancestry (note however that no one wants to go
> full-circle and build a monster comparable to CORBA). It should therefore
> be possible to define a REST+JSON binding for it (or a defined subset of
> it). The schema side of it is straightforward enough, it shouldn't be too
> hard to generate a JSON Schema from WebIDL (I've actually started down
> that path). Defining the interactions is a little bit trickier though.
> 
> Since this work item is not high on anyone's priority list, and since I've
> so far pretty much been the only person occasionally staffed to it, it's
> not moving fast. But if there's interest (and commitment to help) then it
> could move faster. I'd certainly be happy to help.
> 
> --
> Robin Berjon
> 
> FYI - WebApps agreed the public-script-coord list should be used for Web
> IDL technical discussions:
> 
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/

> 
> Although I am delighted Cam will soon return to editing the Web IDL spec,
> he will not attend the upcoming TPAC meeting, thus that spec will not be
> on the agenda of WebApps' f2f meeting that week.
> 
> -Art Barstow
> 
> ACTION-300 - Response from GeoLocation, concerning relaxing the accuracy
> attrib:
> 
> The need to keep the accuracy attribute mandatory is derived from our use
> cases and requirements.
> See req. 6.2.2 here: http://www.w3.org/TR/geolocation-

> API/#requirements_section
> Web applications using the Geolocation API generally need to know the
> accuracy of the location data provided.
> 
> We can certainly bring this up for discussion in the working group as part
> of the planned "Level 2" changes to the API, but I would expect some
> resistance to the proposal.
> 
> Best regards,
> Lars Erik Bolstad
> Co-Chair W3C Geolocation WG
> 
> ACTION-303 - DONE!
> 
> ACTION-305 - DONE, waiting response.
> 
> ACTION-316 - See reply to ACTION 298 - Suggest to close this ACTION.
> 
> Best regards
> Joakim

Received on Sunday, 26 September 2010 14:19:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 26 September 2010 14:19:58 GMT