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: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 21:38:52 +1000
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2kcgpTBkHmJiaSOdomSn381UdHiEaN9F2m5G9uTbB-1jQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com, soohongp@gmail.com, Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@dfki.de>, "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org> wrote:
> Sylvia,
>
> see my responses in line.
>>>
>>> Do you at least agree that we must provide RDF file that are valid
>>> against
>>> our Ontology ? Because this is our goal.
>>
>>
>> Mine validated when I sent them through, see
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Jun/0058.html
>
> Your file validated the *RDF validator*. This means they were syntaxlly
> correct. It does not mean they are valid against our Ontology.
> Just like an XML file is well formed it does not mean it validates against
> its DTD or schema. Please try to understand the difference here and our
> goal: We must publish RDF files to the world that are conformant to our
> Ontology.

I understand. And that's exactly the part that a central editor should
be looking after rather than having distributed editors.


>>> 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.
>>
>> OK, maybe text files can be extended to cover all of the metadata that
>> you are asking for. That's not so simple for binary media files. I've
>> done what I can to put metadata in there. Then I wrote the RDF files
>> that represent the content of the media files and made sure they
>> validated, see
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Jun/0058.html
>
> Again here please read what the WG  requests. We never requested to cover
> all of the metadata,as I have already explained to you. Furthermore we
> said if you are missing properties, you should provide the HTML table with
> the column 'RDF-tested' showing which properties you have used in your
> example.

I have sent this information mostly on the 15th May for Ogg and 30th
May for WebM. Here are some more details:

For Ogg I have:

$oggz-info DougExample.ogv
Content-Duration: 00:00:55.488

Skeleton: serialno 1126212808
	6 packets in 5 pages, 1.2 packets/page, 16.846% Ogg overhead
	Presentation-Time: 0.000
	Basetime: 0.000

Theora: serialno 1855169613
	1390 packets in 172 pages, 8.1 packets/page, 0.660% Ogg overhead
	Theora-Version: 3.2.1
	Video-Framerate: 25.000 fps
	Video-Width: 352
	Video-Height: 576

Vorbis: serialno 1504128350
	5014 packets in 203 pages, 24.7 packets/page, 2.008% Ogg overhead
	Audio-Samplerate: 48000 Hz
	Audio-Channels: 2

and

$oggz-comment -l DougExample.ogv
Theora: serialno 1855169613
	Vendor: Xiph.Org libtheora 1.1 20090822 (Thusnelda)
	TITLE: W3C and Twitter
	DATE: 2009-10-08
	LOCATION: Sydney
	ORGANIZATION: Web Directions South
	COPYRIGHT: CC-BY-SA
	CONTACT: silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com
	ENCODER: ffmpeg2theora-0.27
	SOURCE_OSHASH: 03074c4cc029a79f
Vorbis: serialno 1504128350
	Vendor: Xiph.Org libVorbis I 20090709
	TITLE: W3C and Twitter
	DATE: 2009-10-08
	LOCATION: Sydney
	ORGANIZATION: Web Directions South
	COPYRIGHT: CC-BY-SA
	CONTACT: silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com
	ENCODER: ffmpeg2theora-0.27
	SOURCE_OSHASH: 03074c4cc029a79f


For WebM I chose basically the same information.

Here is what is contained in the file:

$mkvinfo DougExample.webm
+ EBML head
|+ EBML version: 1
|+ EBML read version: 1
|+ EBML maximum ID length: 4
|+ EBML maximum size length: 8
|+ Doc type: webm
|+ Doc type version: 2
|+ Doc type read version: 2
+ Segment, size 2130160
|+ Seek head (subentries will be skipped)
|+ EbmlVoid (size: 28)
|+ Segment information
| + Timecode scale: 1000000
| + Title: W3C and Twitter
| + Muxing application: Lavf52.64.2
| + Writing application: Lavf52.64.2
| + Segment UID: 0xaf 0xdd 0xbe 0x0b 0x4b 0x71 0xfe 0xb5 0x77 0xfe
0xda 0x39 0x75 0xb0 0x30 0x78
| + Duration: 55.500s (00:00:55.500)
|+ Segment tracks
| + A track
|  + Track number: 1
|  + Track UID: 1
|  + Lacing flag: 0
|  + Language: en
|  + Codec ID: V_VP8
|  + Track type: video
|  + Default duration: 40.000ms (25.000 fps for a video track)
|  + Video track
|   + Pixel width: 352
|   + Pixel height: 576
|   + Display width: 768
|   + Display height: 576
|   + Interlaced: 0
|  + Name: video-1
|  + Enabled: 1
|  + Default flag: 1
|  + Forced flag: 0
|  + MinCache: 0
|  + Timecode scale: 1
|  + Max BlockAddition ID: 0
|  + Codec decode all: 1
| + A track
|  + Track number: 2
|  + Track UID: 2
|  + Lacing flag: 0
|  + Name: audio-1
|  + Language: en
|  + Codec ID: A_VORBIS
|  + Track type: audio
|  + Audio track
|   + Channels: 2
|   + Sampling frequency: 48000
|   + Bit depth: 16
|  + CodecPrivate, length 3554
|  + Enabled: 1
|  + Default flag: 1
|  + Forced flag: 0
|  + MinCache: 0
|  + Timecode scale: 1
|  + Max BlockAddition ID: 0
|  + Codec decode all: 1
|+ EbmlVoid (size: 93)
|+ Cluster

from which I extract:

Title: W3C and Twitter
Duration: 55.500s (00:00:55.500)

Video track:
Track number: 1
Track UID: 1
Name: video-1
Language: en
Codec ID: V_VP8
Track type: video
Default duration: 40.000ms (25.000 fps for a video track)
Pixel width: 352
Pixel height: 576
Display width: 768
Display height: 576

Audio track:
Track number: 2
Track UID: 2
Name: audio-1
Language: en
Codec ID: A_VORBIS
Track type: audio
Channels: 2
Sampling frequency: 48000
Bit depth: 16


Hope this helps.

Regards,
Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 11:39:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 July 2011 11:39:54 GMT