W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > July 2011

Re: RE : Minutes of the MAWG telecon july 18th 2011 and ACTION for editors.

From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:47:48 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <1ec7070f108688230867026aa0757df0.squirrel@webmail.sophia.w3.org>
To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: "Thierry Michel" <tmichel@w3.org>, "Felix Sasaki" <felix.sasaki@dfki.de>, "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>

> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org> wrote:
>> Felix,
>>
>> I agree that the deadline Aug 7th is not the greatest, regarding the
>> summer holiday. (but remember that these files were requested more than
>> 5
>> months ago).
>
> That is an unfair statement. The files were requested and provided. It
> is this continued request to re-edit and re-edit the files that I
> don't understand.

Do you at least agree that we must provide RDF file that are valid against
our Ontology ? Because this is our goal.


>
>
>> Now why Aug 7th ? Just to match the specification SoTD:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/CR-mediaont-10-20110707/
>>
>> "This specification will remain a Candidate Recommendation until at
>> least
>> 01 August 2011 and until the API for Media Resource 1.0 specification
>> enters Candidate Recommendation."
>>
>> And the API for Media Resource 1.0 specification LC review ends  07
>> August
>> 2011.
>> see:
>>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20110712
>>
>> The idea was to collect all files at that date. Then we will have to
>> check
>> again all the RDF files: We must make sure that not only the RDF files
>> are
>> valid (against the RDF validator) but also they validate against the
>> Media
>> Ontology (for this we use Protégé). If anyone has a better idea idea,
>> the
>> Group will be happy to do otherwise. Thanks to Werner and Martin to
>> provide this "how to use" guide to validate the RDF files with Protégé.
>>
>> We can not move to PR with RDF files in a testsuite that do not validate
>> the Media Ontology scheme.
>>
>> I am fine with extending the deadline, but I would not want to delay
>> eternally this spec. At some point if there are RDF files that do
>> fulfill
>> the guidelines, we will have to remove the corresponding mapping Format
>> from the Ontology spec (according to the CR exit criteria).
>>
>> I personnally have no real RDF expertise. But I think the guidelines are
>> very helpfull (thank for all the people who have given input here). And
>> it
>> has helped me a lot to do my format. Also looking at other correct file
>> is
>> a lot of help.
>>
>> There are a  few lines mandatory like the following to add to the file
>> to
>> allow validation. Also providing in parallel the HTML column of the
>> "RDF-tested" column is affordable to everyone.
>>
>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>> <!-- created by hand by Thierry MICHEL (W3C) for Dublin Core example
>> file
>> : version 4 -->
>> <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://www.w3.org/ns/ma-ont#"
>> xmlns:ma="http://www.w3.org/ns/ma-ont#"
>> xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>> xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
>> xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
>> xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"
>> xmlns:more="........." >
>> <owl:Ontology>
>>    <owl:imports rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/ns/ma-ont"/>
>> </owl:Ontology>
>
>
> It seems to me there are 25 formats and thus 25 files to edit.

Right. And each have an editor.

If this
> is all the change you need, why not just go ahead and do it? It will
> be done within an hour or two rather than having to bug every editor,
> which will take you weeks.

This piece of code only allows to validate the RDF files with Protégé
(Just like you would add a DTD or a Shema link to validate an XML file).
>
>
>
>> Then one has to make sure the file validates against the Ontology using
>> Protégé.
>
> And that's where I decided that I wasn't able to help you. In one of
> your emails there is a list of 3 or 4 pieces of software that editors
> are being asked to install and test their files on. To me it seems
> that the approach of distributing out the editorship to this many
> people does not scale. Why would everyone need to install all this
> software and go through all these processes when one central person
> that understands it can do it within a short amount of time?

When all the files are provided. We decided that we would assign
reviwer(s) to make sure the files do validate. Meanwhile it is up to the
editors to provide complete and conformant files to the guideline.

>
> Just the amount of time that it takes me to understand what you are
> asking me to do would probably be shorter if you just did it yourself.

I could of course run your files in Protégé (though I haver no more
expertise than you have with this software.

But more is that one needs to chech is the vocabulary used is OK with the
one of the Ontology.

I have no RDF and OWL expertise  nor expertise for every formats provided
(Only editors do) to check all the RDF files.

Best Thierry


>
> Best Regards,
> Silvia.
>
>
>
>> This is the way to start with.
>>
>> Sylvia should start with this and if the file don't validate, I guess
>> there will be people from the WG helping her to provide good RDF files.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Thierry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I assume that the difference between you and Silvia is that you have
>>> much
>>> more experience in work with RDF. So even if you and Silvia are asked
>>> the
>>> same thing, in practice it means much more work for her.
>>>
>>> Of course you are right about what Thierry is doing. But there are very
>>> experienced RDF experts in this group. So maybe some of them wants to
>>> take
>>> the effort and help Silvia?
>>>
>>> I understand that this approach of helping out the actual owner of a
>>> format
>>> does not scale. But in this specific case I see the value of building a
>>> bridge between (the godmother of) HTML5 (video) and RDF.
>>>
>>> Another issue here is of course the deadline. Setting a deadline as 7
>>> August, that is in the middle of the summer break, creates problems. So
>>> maybe extending this to the end of August might help here too, like it
>>> would
>>> help me for XMP and and Flash. As said in a different thread, 7 August
>>> will
>>> not work for me anyway.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Felix
>>>
>>>
>>> 2011/7/26 Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
>>>
>>>> I was also obliged to add fields to my real data operational files to
>>>> illustrate how the different formats I was responsible for would map
>>>> to
>>>> ma-ont. I also spent hours on this and I wasn't so happy about it but
>>>> I
>>>> complied.
>>>>
>>>> Of course I would never have expected from Thierry to have to get into
>>>> all
>>>> these details for each format and correct my mistakes.
>>>>
>>>> In contrary I'd to restrospectively warmly thank Thierry for providing
>>>> me
>>>> with the information I needed to complete this work, in addition to
>>>> timely
>>>> uploading the files (xml, rdf and html).
>>>>
>>>> I also would like to congratulate the group who made the review of
>>>> each
>>>> format and mapping during the last F2F.
>>>>
>>>> Jean-Pierre
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> De : public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [
>>>> public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] de la part de Thierry Michel [
>>>> tmichel@w3.org]
>>>> Date d'envoi : lundi, 25. juillet 2011 17:40
>>>> À : Silvia Pfeiffer
>>>> Cc : tmichel@w3.org; public-media-annotation@w3.org
>>>> Objet : Re: Minutes of the MAWG telecon july 18th 2011 and ACTION for
>>>> editors.
>>>>
>>>> > Dear Thierry,
>>>> >
>>>> > I am not an editor on this spec, just a willing contributor. I have
>>>> > spent many hours preparing files for this WG such that there are
>>>> files
>>>> > for formats that this WG cares about or should care about. The last
>>>> > time that I sent files through I was told that the files are fine.
>>>> Now
>>>> > I am told there is more work that I need to do with a link to a
>>>> > randomly long list of things that I should take the files through. I
>>>> > would prefer to be told exactly what is wrong with my files. Also, I
>>>> > believe I have provided sufficient detail the last time around that
>>>> > you as a W3C employee can just fix up whatever wrong RDF markup I
>>>> > provided if it doesn't validate.
>>>> >
>>>> > As for any missing fields: I have in the past explained how in
>>>> theory
>>>> > Ogg and WebM files can contain all these fields, but that existing
>>>> > software does not encode all of these fields at this point in time.
>>>> I
>>>> > have added what was possible to the binary files at this point. I
>>>> can
>>>> > make up RDF files that do not relate to the binary files, but that
>>>> > will be very unhelpful. As the files are just an example for what is
>>>> > possible at this point in time, I do not see a need to write new
>>>> > software that will create files with all the fields that you are
>>>> > asking for. I believe you will actually end up with the same
>>>> situation
>>>> > for all of the binary formats including FLV and MP4. I have
>>>> explained
>>>> > this in that past - indeed in many discussions and emails that we
>>>> had
>>>> > on this topic - but I just don't seem to be able to make this point
>>>> > understood.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> It is 100% understood, and we have taken resolution about it, but
>>>> because
>>>> you did not attend the MAWG F2F nor the telcons you may not be aware
>>>> of
>>>> the WG decision.
>>>>
>>>> Please read the CR exit critéria (these have been requested by the W3C
>>>> Director, no me !).
>>>>
>>>> "
>>>> Each format listed in the testsuite for Ontology for Media Resources
>>>> 1.0
>>>> has at least one example file covering a subset or all of the
>>>> properties
>>>> of the core vocabulary of the Media Ontology available for each format
>>>> (e.g some formats may not have a mapping to all the properties core
>>>> set;
>>>> for example the "MP4" format does not have a property mapping to the
>>>> "identifier" property of the core vocabulary of the Media Ontology).
>>>> For
>>>> formats providing an exemple using only a subset of the properties of
>>>> the
>>>> core vocabulary, the missing properties will be highlighted in the
>>>> corresponding mapping tables
>>>> "
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/CR-mediaont-10-20110707/
>>>>
>>>> > Once your "help" is more concrete than sending me a hyperlink to an
>>>> > email with 4 further hyperlinks, two semi-understandable meeting
>>>> > minutes, a guideline for editing with a request to install 4 pieces
>>>> of
>>>> > software (which in my case for binary files isn't even sufficient),
>>>> > and a random call to "just fix your files", feel free to get back to
>>>> > me with concrete questions for what you still need for these files.
>>>>
>>>> I have pointed to an older email that you seemed to be unaware of.
>>>> Do I need to copy the minutes in my email. Isn't an hyperlink good
>>>> enough?
>>>>
>>>> We (the MAWG) have reviewed the RDF files during the F2F. We have
>>>> concluded that some RDF files are not good, some are missing info,
>>>> etc.
>>>> Therefore we have written guidelines in order to help the editors.
>>>> Files
>>>> must fulfill the guidelines.
>>>> If there are pieces that you don't understand in these guidelines, the
>>>> MAWG will be happy to clarifying what is unclear. Maybe you could join
>>>> a
>>>> telecon if you have any issues.
>>>> I am only coordinating the work here. If you may also ask more details
>>>> to
>>>> our co chairs.d
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Thierry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Best Regards,
>>>> > Silvia Pfeiffer.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> Sylvia,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> We had many discussions and emails on this topic.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Please refer to the F2F minutes for review of your formats OGG and
>>>> WebM
>>>> >> and
>>>> >> also to the guidelines to edit conformant RDF files.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Jul/0023.html
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Best,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thierry.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Le 22/07/2011 12:35, Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit :
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Dear Thierry,
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> What is missing now in the files? Are you able to fix it without
>>>> my
>>>> >>> help?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Thanks,
>>>> >>> Silvia.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Thierry MICHEL<tmichel@w3.org>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Colleagues,
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> During this telecon there was very poor attendance.
>>>> >>>> Only Werner, Mari-Carmen and I were present.
>>>> >>>> Unfortunately, we were missing a quorum and only a couple of
>>>> regrets
>>>> >>>> sent.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> We have discussed the RDF files in the Testsuite and the
>>>> guidelines
>>>> to
>>>> >>>> provide conformant RDF files.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> So far we have 7 formats conformant (RDF files marked in green)
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> We are missing the following compliant RDF files and updated HTML
>>>> >>>> mapping
>>>> >>>> table:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Joakim:
>>>> >>>> - Cablelabs
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Wonsuk
>>>> >>>> -MRSS
>>>> >>>> -TXF
>>>> >>>> -You tube
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Sylvia
>>>> >>>> -OGG
>>>> >>>> -WebM
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Courtney/Mari Carment
>>>> >>>> - 3GPP
>>>> >>>> - Quicktime
>>>> >>>> -
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Felix
>>>> >>>> - Flash
>>>> >>>> - XMP
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Tobias
>>>> >>>> - EXIF
>>>> >>>> - LOM
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Pierre Antoine
>>>> >>>> -ID3
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Chris:
>>>> >>>> - Dig35
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Next week the telecon (July 25th) will be canceled.
>>>> >>>> ACTION: editors please work on these files. We are about to be
>>>> done
>>>> >>>> now
>>>> >>>> to
>>>> >>>> move to REC, once we have fulfilled these files.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Deadline is Aug 4th.
>>>> >>>> Best,
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Thierry
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thierry Michel
>>>> W3C
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thierry Michel
>> W3C
>>
>


-- 
Thierry Michel
W3C
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 15:48:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 26 July 2011 15:48:24 GMT