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

Response to your LC Comment -2411 on Media Ontology spec

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:57:59 +0200
Message-ID: <4CA2E377.5040405@w3.org>
To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
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.

Thanks,

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

1. 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Aug/0000.html
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 Wednesday, 29 September 2010 06:58:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 29 September 2010 06:58:53 GMT