W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-mmsem@w3.org > July 2007

[MMSEM-Vocabulary] comments on XGR

From: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:06:43 +0200
Message-ID: <469B9793.492AF164@cwi.nl>
To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
CC: MMSem-XG Public List <public-xg-mmsem@w3.org>

Dear Michael,

Apologies for this long delay. This is finally my internal review for
the "Multimedia Vocabularies on the Semantic Web" document [1]. Once
these comments addressed, the document would be published as an XGR very

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/mmsem/XGR-vocabularies/
Revision: ??

    - I have sorted alphabetically the contributors and moved Roberto
and Werner in the ack section since they were not members of the XG.
    - They were no consistency on the links from the names (email,
homepage, institution page). The preferred link is the homepage. For
Michael and Erik, there is now a link to your email address. Would you
both prefer to link your name to a web page?

Section 3.1.1: put a reference for VRA and for Dublin Core the first
time the reader encounters these terms.
Section 3.1.2: put a reference to EXIF.
Section 3.1.3: say first what is NISO Z39.87 and put a reference so that
the description is homogeneous to the other sections. Currently, the
section begins with "Tags cover a wide ..." => what are you talking
about? What is the dictionary you're refering to?
Section 3.1.4: put a reference to DIG35
Section 3.1.5: put a reference to PhotoRDF
Section 3.2.1: put a reference to ID3
In this section, you wrote: "The ID3 specification tries to cover a
broad range; a list of genres is defined.". Could you precise what is
this "broad range"? Could you give this list of genre defined by ID3
tags? Would it make sense to enumerate the 15 most used properties in
ID3 and explicitely write that the user can define his own properties?
Section 3.2.2: put a reference to MusicBrainz
Section 3.2.3: put a reference to MusicXML
Section 3.3.1: given that the MPEG-7 document will remain a very
preliminary draft, I suggest you include ALL
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/mmsem/wiki/Vocabularies#e_MPEG-7 in the
section 3.3.1. You can end this section with the pointer towards the
MMSem XF working draft
(http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/mmsem/XGR-mpeg7/). Don't forget the
reference to MPEG-7.
Section 3.3.2: put a reference to AAF
Section 3.3.3: put a reference to MXF
Section 3.4.1: put a reference to SMIL. Could you also say a word about
SMIL 3.0 which is just announced as the last Call for Comments for a WD
before becoming a Candidate Recommendation ...
Section 3.4.2: put a reference to SVG
Section 3.5.1: put a reference to NewsML
Section 3.5.2: put a reference to TVAnytime
Section 3.5.3: put a reference to MPEG-21
The description of this standard is far too long, and not consistent
with the other ones :-( There is no usefulness to describe the 18 parts,
or we should have done the same thing for MPEG-7 for example. I think
the description of all parts could be completely removed. An alternative
(my preference) would be to report only about the relevant parts for the
topics covered by the XG, that is: the parts 2 and 3 (Digital Item) and
the part 17 (fragment identification).
Section 3.5.4: put a reference to EBU P/Meta
Section 3.6.1: put a reference to Dublin Core
Section 4.3: given that the MPEG-7 document will remain a very
preliminary draft, I suggest you include ALL
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/mmsem/wiki/Vocabularies#f_MPEG-7 in the
section 4.3. You can end this section with the pointer towards the MMSem
XF working draft (http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/mmsem/XGR-mpeg7/).
Section 5: given that VDO is also part of MPEG-7, would it make sense to
have a dedicated section 5 or should you merge sections 4 and 5 into a
single section "Multimedia Ontologies" and including VRA, EXIF, MPEG-7,
NewsML, VDO, etc. in OWL/RDF?
The section 5.3 is incomplete. Could you complete them?

References: are you using all of them?

* "Put a reference to ..." means having the standard listed in the
Reference section and the relevant pointer to that in the appropriate

I have also corrected some typos found all along the document ("viz."
which is rarely used in English, "..." found at different places, etc.)
and rephrased some sections. Please, could you tell me if you agree with
all the changes?

Best regards.



RaphaŽl Troncy
CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science),
Kruislaan 413, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093
Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312
Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
Received on Monday, 16 July 2007 16:07:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:22 GMT