W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > June 2012

AW: [ACTION-472] Compile list of status code issues / additional issues

From: Höffernig, Martin <Martin.Hoeffernig@joanneum.at>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:27:42 +0200
To: "tmichel@w3.org" <tmichel@w3.org>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD9846F872C7874BB4E0FDF2A61EF09FEE76E10C0F@RZJC1EX.jr1.local>
Dear Thierry, all,

here is an incomplete list of issues regarding category 3:

EBUCore:
Location - 2 location data sets in JSON response, only 1 location present in ontology 
NamedFragment - NamedFragements in JSON, however no ma:hasNamedFragment relations in ontology
Locator - property has been mixed up with Location, contains the same data

Exif:
FrameSize -  JSON contains 2 FrameSize data sets for same media resource, one FrameSize should refer to related thumbnail image

ID3:
Contributor - roleLabels for Contributor (e.g. "TCOM Composer") not present in ontology

LOM 2.1:
FrameSize - present in JSON, no data available in ontology
Duration - same issue

Media RSS:
Copyright - holderLink present in JSON, no information available in ontology

TV-Anytime:
TargetAudience - multiple targetAudience result sets present in JSON, only 1 target audience in ontology

Since my list is incomplete, more sync issues are potentially possible. Therefore I suggest to fully revise the JSON files and update these files w.r.t the unchanged ontology files.

Best,
Martin


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Thierry MICHEL [mailto:tmichel@w3.org]
> Gesendet: Montag, 11. Juni 2012 12:21
> An: tmichel@w3.org
> Cc: Höffernig, Martin; public-media-annotation@w3.org; Bailer, Werner
> Betreff: Re: [ACTION-472] Compile list of status code issues /
> additional issues
> 
> 
> Remains now the third category that we may want to naildown before
> going to PR
> 
>  > I made the observation
>  > that some JSON response documents are not in sync with the  >
> corresponding ontology examples.
>  >
>  > Therefore, MediaAnnotation objects include data which are not  >
> present in the corresponding ontology document.
>  >
>  > I thought that the ontology documents should be the basis for the
> JSON  > responses?
>  >
>  > Concerning formats:
>  >
>  > EBUCore, Exif, ID3, LOM, MediaRSS, TV-Anytime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you precise which data are out of sync ?
> 
> How should we resolve it:
> Should we update the output (the JSON Files) or the input (example and
> the RDF files in the Ontology testsuite?
> 
> Best,
> 
> thierry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Le 11/06/2012 11:55, Thierry MICHEL a écrit :
> > Martin,
> >
> >
> > With the previous publication of your updated JSON files, I have also
> > updated these with the proper status code 200, as requested bellow.
> >
> >
> > This should now close the issue for the category 1 and 2.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > thierry.
> >
> > Le 05/06/2012 12:52, Höffernig, Martin a écrit :
> >>
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> I have reviewed the API status codes [1] in the normative JSON files
> >> of the testsuite implementation [2] and I found some issues that
> >> should be addressed.
> >> All of these issues are related to the usage of status code 206
> >> (partial content).
> >> For me, 206 is misused in many cases since its semantics is possibly
> >> not quite clear.
> >>
> >> I think, 206 should be returned in cases where only partial data of
> >> available data for a media resource is returned.
> >> For example, when requesting the FrameSize property and Height will
> >> be returned only, while data about Width is available as well should
> >> result in status code 206.
> >> On the other side, when retrieving a location property for which the
> >> name of the location (locationLabel) is available only - further
> >> information like latitude and longitude is not available - I suggest
> >> to return status code 200 (OK), since all the available information
> >> will be returned.
> >>
> >> Taken my interpretation of the usage of satus code 206 into account,
> >> I suggest to change the status code 206 to 200 in for the following
> >> MediaAnnotation objects:
> >> DIG35:
> >> Location, Copyright
> >
> > Done.
> >
> >> DublinCore:
> >> Contributor, MADate, Location, Relation, Copyright
> >
> > Done.
> >
> >> EBUCore:
> >> Locator, Location, Creator, Relation, TargetAudience,
> NamendFragment,
> >> Fragment, FrameSize
> >
> > Done.
> >
> >> Exif:
> >> Copyright, FrameSize
> >
> > Done.
> >
> >> ID3:
> >> Contributor
> >
> > Done.
> >
> >> YouTube:
> >> TargetAudience
> > Done.
> >
> >> IPTC:
> >> Location, Copyright, Policy, TargetAudience, Fragment, FrameSize
> >
> > Done.
> >
> >> LOM 2.1:
> >> FrameSize
> > Done.
> >
> >> Media RSS:
> >> Location, Rating, Copyright, Policy, FrameSize
> > Done.
> >
> >
> >
> >> TV-Anytime:
> >> Relation, TargetAudience
> > Done.
> >
> >
> >> TXFeed:
> >> Copyright
> > Done.
> >
> >> XMP:
> >> Contributor, Creator, MADate, Location, Rating, Relation, Copyright,
> >> Policy
> > Done.
> >
> >> YouTube:
> >> TargetAudience
> >
> > already Done from above.
> >>
> >> Furthermore, I suggest that in a JSON response, MediaAnnotation
> >> objects should only contain attributes with associated values.
> >> For example, in the following MediaAnnotation object, the attributes
> >> language, fragmentIdentifer, typeLink, and typeLabel should be
> >> removed, since no value is available for these attributes.
> >> { "Title" : {
> >> "propertyName" : "title",
> >> "value" : "Oasis Concert Stage @ I Am A Walrus", "language" : "",
> >> "sourceFormat" : "dig35", "fragmentIdentifier" : "", "mappingType" :
> >> "exact", "titleLabel" : "Oasis Concert Stage @ I Am A Walrus",
> >> "typeLink" : "", "typeLabel" : "", "statusCode" : 200 }
> >>
> >> This issue applies to many MediaAnnotation objects in following
> >> documents:
> >> DIG35, Dublin Core, EBUCore, Exif, ID3, IPTC, LOM, MediaRSS, DMS-1,
> >> TV-Anytime, TXFeed, XMP, YouTube
> >>
> >> Moreover, while examining the status codes, I made the observation
> >> that some JSON response documents are not in sync with the
> >> corresponding ontology examples.
> >> Therefore, MediaAnnotation objects include data which are not
> present
> >> in the corresponding ontology document.
> >> I thought that the ontology documents should be the basis for the
> >> JSON responses?
> >> Concerning formats:
> >> EBUCore, Exif, ID3, LOM, MediaRSS, TV-Anytime
> >>
> >> [1]:
> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20111122/#api-status-
> co
> >> des
> >> [2]:
> >>
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/TestSuite_implementa
> >> tion
> >>
> >> Hope my observation scan help to improve the JSON documents.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Martin
> >> --
> >> Martin Höffernig
> >> Audiovisual Media Group
> >> DIGITAL - Institute for Information and Communication Technologies
> >>
> >> JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH Steyrergasse 17, 8010
> >> Graz, AUSTRIA
> >>
> >> phone: +43-316-876-1184
> >> general fax: +43-316-876-1191
> >> web: http://www.joanneum.at/digital
> >> e-mail:
> >> martin.hoeffernig@joanneum.at<mailto:martin.hoeffernig@joanneum.at>
> >>
> >>
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 12:28:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 June 2012 12:28:12 GMT