W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > March 2009

Re: Use Cases and Requirements Wiki page updated

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 11:49:11 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02830903021649ofc89550kb00536a9611d12be@mail.gmail.com>
To: Guillaume Olivrin <golivrin@meraka.org.za>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Looks good at first sight - in particular the SVG. Many thanks for drawing it!

I haven't re-read the details, but will as I paste it into the Working Draft.

Raphael: can you give me a quick intro to how to go about that or send
a link that explains it?

Thanks,
Silvia.

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Guillaume Olivrin
<golivrin@meraka.org.za> wrote:
> Dear WG,
>
> This is a follow-up of ACTION-43 (Guillaume to incorporate changes
> proposed by reviewers of the Use Case and Requirements Wiki page) now
> closed.
>
> I have incorporated all the changes from the UC reviews (Raphael, Jack,
> Guillaume and Davy) in the Wiki. I encourage you to review the new Draft
> with all the changes incorporated at
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Use_Cases_%
> 26_Requirements_Draft.
>
> Below I raise a few points about the changes:
>
>
> * I kept the (Out-Of-Scope) Use Cases in the Draft with the others. I
> think it's important to show what's IN and what's OUT. Maybe we ought to
> have more Out-Of-Scope use case...
>
> * The main structural changes to the UC draft are:
> *1 I have fully removed Section 2 (the "technology" use cases) and
> incorporated these UCs in with the first section under their appropriate
> theme.
> *2 The two parts of the draft are now called Functional and
> Non-functional Requirements.
> *3 I have given each UC a short name
>
> * (Ex-)Section 2 tried to give an account what Media Fragments meant for
> existing technologies (and new developments thereof). Instead it gave UC
> stories. Should we still try to capture in a separate wiki page
> (discussion page) what features media fragments bring from the
> technological point of view? For example to make Media Fragment explicit
> by application (web browsers, media players, search engines) - i.e.
> Search engines could return media fragments in their results, media
> players could introduce extra meta-data and auto-generate playlists from
> all fragments of a media, web browser will have URI rewrite schemes for
> time and space etc ...).
>
> * UC similarities & relations :
>
> (Linking) Scenario 3: Portion of Music
> related to
> (Recomposing) Scenario 5: Music Samples
>
> (Linking) Scenario 4: Moving Windows of Interest
> related to
> (Annotating) Scenario 7: Spatial and Temporal Tagging
>
> (Linking) Scenario 1: Search Engine
> related to
> (Annotating) Scenario 5: Search Engine
> related to
> (Annotating) Scenario 1: Spatial Tagging of Images
>
> (Linking) Scenario 2: Region of an Image
> related to
> (Recomposing) Scenario 1: Reframing a photo in a slideshow
>
> It seems more interesting and explicit to have many specialised UC
> rather than too generic ones.
>
>
>
> Also Captured
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/thumb/4/40/Model_Video_Resource.jpg/800px-Model_Video_Resource.jpg
> as SVG
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Image:Model_of_a_Video_Resource.svg
> and PNG
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Image:Model_of_a_Video_Resource.png
>
> Additional UCs :
> + The "Search engine" UC under "Annotating Media Fragments"
> Guillaume wants to retrieve the images of each bike present at a recent
> cycling event. Group photos and general shots of the event have been
> published online and thanks to a query in a search engine, Guillaume can
> now retrieve multiple individual shots of each bike in the collection.
>
>
> Regards,
> Guillaume
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2009 00:49:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:32 GMT