W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-mmsem@w3.org > September 2006

[MMSem-UC] Suggestion for the general structure of the UCs

From: VassilisTzouvaras <tzouvaras@image.ntua.gr>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:38:19 +0300
Message-Id: <200609200838.k8K8cKkJ026366@manolito.image.ece.ntua.gr>
To: <public-xg-mmsem@w3.org>
Dear All,

 

Having studied the current use cases and also, from my experience
participating in the MM Task Force of SWBPD, I would like to propose a
possible structure for the Use Cases (UCs).

 

1)      All UCs must start with an introduction describing the general idea,
past work and the contents of the UC.  The motivating example should not be
included in the intro subsection.

 

2)      The aim of the deliverable is to report on the interoperability
problems that exist among multimedia metadata standards and provide a
possible solution *using* SW technologies. Therefore, all the UCs must
present a motivating example and report on the interoperability problems
that exist among *specific* metadata standards.  Also, we must present how
the interoperability problems are tackled now (if tackled) and which are the
drawbacks and limitations. 

 

3)      Having presented the motivating example, the interoperability issues
and the drawbacks of the current situation, we must present the possible
solution using SW technologies. It is very important to show the added value
of using SW technologies without making the solution too complicated (if
possible) and difficult to understand. We don't have to present the perfect
theoretical solution, but a practical solution on which SW technologies is
the key element (not necessarily the only element). Also, it is not very
nice having big pieces of XML and/or OWL/RDF code in the solution since is
not human readable and therefore useless. I propose only having small
examples and/or graphical representations illustrating what is described in
the text. The full code can be put somewhere else and have a link. I suggest
all to read the deliverable of the MM TF
(http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/MM/image_annotation.html) and see
how the code issue is handled.

 

4)      The UCs must have a concluding subsection presenting the advantages
on using SW technologies for tackling the reported interoperability issues.

 

5)      Finally, the references.  

 

This is my suggestion for the general structure of the UCs. I propose
agreeing on the general structure (the subsections) of the UCs and be free
to structure its subsection according to the needs of its UC.  Therefore, I
would like to trigger some discussion on what else should be included in the
UCs and in each subsection. 

 

Regards,

Vassilis

 
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 08:38:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:19 GMT