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

Re: Response to your LC Comment -2393 on Media Ontology spec

From: James Salsman <jsalsman@talknicer.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:12:30 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=nBEWheecZSu7yznmUyGFJ29WLQoKO1wDY_mc5@mail.gmail.com>
To: tmichel@w3.org
Cc: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>, public-device-apis@w3.org
Dear Thierry,

Thank you for your message below.

I don't agree with the statement that speex or VP8 are not metadata
formats.  They are audio and audiovisual media formats which contain
both metadata and data in their specifications.

This disagreement can be resolved if speex and VP8 are included in the
media ontology.  Four weeks ago I asked the Device API working group
if there were any objections to the use of speex as a default audio
format, and there were no objections which proposed a superior format
or contained any reasons why speex was not a suitable default audio
format.  There have been about five objections stating that consensus
may be unlikely, all of which were based on historical difficulties in
achieving consensus for codec defaults which occurred during pertinent
conditions which I do not believe are true today.

Best regards,
James Salsman

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:03 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 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/0053.html
> 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/
>
> -----------------
> MAWG Resolution:
> -----------------
> The mapping 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 version 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 focus on your request to include VP8 and speex in our Ontology, the
> mapping tables are intended for multimedia *metadata formats*.
>
> - VP8 is an open video compression format (codec).
> - Speex is a free audio codec for Free Speech.
>
> These are not *metadata formats*, and therefore not meant to be listed in
> our mapping tables.
>
> The working Group is open to addition of more metadata formats. If there are
> particular metadata formats that you would like to see included in this
> specification, please bring your expertise to the working group and we
> invite you to join the Media Annotations Working Group.
>
> We have also discussed the WebM issue. The Group has agreed to include a
> section for additional mappings to various media container formats, likely
> (3GP, FLV/Flash, MPEG4(MP4),MOV (Quicktime), OGG, WebM)
>
> Please bring your expertise to the working group to fill the following
> mapping table for WebM.
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/ontology10/CR/test.php?table=containerWebM
>
> It will then be included in the next publication of the Spec.
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2010 20:13:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 29 September 2010 20:13:05 GMT