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

[action-442] review of use cases and requirements doc

From: Florian Stegmaier <stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:50:38 +0200
Message-Id: <5E707319-C88D-4A2B-96B1-F142BA3F802B@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de>
To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Dear all,

i have reviewed the use cases and requirements doc. There are a few things that need to be changed in order to be consistent to the other specs:

#Abstract:
- "The API will provide read access and potentially write access to media resources, relying on the definitions from the ontology."
-> this needs to be rephrased

#Introduction:
- Several metadata formats are named. We should ensure only to name those, that are also integrated in the mapping table.

- "The "Ontology for Media Resource 1.0" will address the intercompatiblity problem"
-> …interoperability problem…

- "This document specifies the use cases and requirements that are motivating the development of the "Ontology for Media Resource 1.0". The scope is mainly video media resources, but we take also other media resources into account if their metadata information is related to video."
-> why only use cases for the ontology? we should also have use cases for the api. we should discuss this in detail in a teleconf or start a single mail-thread.

#Section 2:
-> this needs a major update. At the moment it is quiet meaningless to me.

#Section 3:
- The graphic is a little bit huge - should be repainted.
- The text should be rephrased from a linguistic point of view.

#Section 4: 
-> Should be at the beginning of the document.

Should Section 5 and 6 be switched? It would help the reader to have first introduced some basic requirements in order to reference on those in the later use case section.

#Section 5.5
I would drop the XML code. The other use cases do not present technical aspects.

The soundness of the use cases are quiet ok. We should have an extra use case which is in the scope of the WEBAPP WG. @Wonsuk: do you have an idea for such a use case?

#Section 6
-> we should have a discussion in a teleconf, whether the requirements are up to date or need to be rephrased. r02 for example will not be covered by our API spec.

Along the whole document, the named specs should be also available through a link. I can perform the editorial changes if you like asap.

Cheers.
_____________________________
Dipl. Inf. Florian Stegmaier
Chair of Distributed Information Systems
University of Passau
Innstr. 43
94032 Passau

Room 248 ITZ

Tel.: +49 851 509 3063
Fax: +49 851 509 3062

stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de
https://www.dimis.fim.uni-passau.de/iris/
http://twitter.com/fstegmai
_____________________________

_____________________________
Dipl. Inf. Florian Stegmaier
Chair of Distributed Information Systems
University of Passau
Innstr. 43
94032 Passau

Room 248 ITZ

Tel.: +49 851 509 3063
Fax: +49 851 509 3062

stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de
https://www.dimis.fim.uni-passau.de/iris/
http://twitter.com/fstegmai
_____________________________
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2011 07:51:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 October 2011 07:51:18 GMT