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

Re: Response to your LC Comment -2418 on Media Ontology spec

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:11:25 +0200
Cc: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2630FE8B-5CCE-45D7-BE06-D410B61E91C9@berjon.com>
To: tmichel@w3.org
Dear MAWG,

On Sep 29, 2010, at 09:01 , Thierry MICHEL wrote:
> The Working Group's response to your comment is included below (your points are copied and our responses start with an arrow ->).

No they don't ;-)

> We agreed with your editorial comments and will implement them in the coming weeks.

I'm satisfied with this resolution.

> About your substantial comment regarding the sentence: "The Working Group MAY potentially modify these definitions, to ensure compatibility with the return data types defined in API for Media Resources 1.0 s well as the data types defined in the HTML5 W3C Working Draft.", we will modify the sentence to make clear that we indeed provide a stable version of the properties' definition, including their values.

I'm satisfied with this resolution.

> About "Applications that are compliant with this specification SHOULD use this namespace.", SHOULD will be replaced by MUST in the next version of the document.

I'm satisfied with this resolution.

> About "A controlled vocabulary such as [BCP 47] SHOULD be used.", SHOULD will be replaced by RECOMMENDED in the next version of the document: we recommend the use of a controlled vocabulary over non-controlled values, but it is not a strong compliance requirement for using the Media Ontology.

According to RFC 2119 SHOULD and RECOMMENDED are equivalent, so this is essentially a non-change. Specifically, they "mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course." I can see how using a SHOULD/RECOMMEND here may make sense, but you SHOULD (heh!) provide implementers with some information as to why a controlled vocabulary is better  that was they can "understand the implications". But I won't formally object over that.

> About ""it MAY also define a coordinate system that can be used to interpret these measurements" Is there a controlled vocabulary for these? ", we will give an example of a geocoordinate that can be used in this case and rephrase the sentence to avoid the confusion about "interpreting the measurements" in the next version of the document.

I'm satisfied with this resolution.

> About "ma:format include media type parameters?": yes, it does include bucket media types (the new version of the document includes this specification).

I will be satisfied with this resolution if it includes a grammar, a pointer to a grammar, or any other clear way of parsing the value.

> About the "XPath heterogeneity problem": it is being harmonized and will be consistent in the new version of the document.

For this I would kindly ask that the WG send me a pointer to the harmonised version once it is ready so that I may review it.


Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2010 08:11:58 UTC

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