- From: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>
- Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:53:56 +0100
- To: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>
- CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org, Véronique Malaisé <vmalaise@gmail.com>
Hi Wonsuk and Veronique, thanks for the draft - looks good! I read your draft and have some comments about it: * For 2.1 General overview (2): Context is a critical aspect and I guess you mix 2 different types of "context" here - the context of the user who accesses the content and the context in which the content is embedded. From my point of view, we have something like a deployment context and a usage context in there. * 2.1 General: you seperate between physical content and semantic content. This distinction is not totally clear to me. What do you mean with physical: the structure and underlying technical representation of the content? When you get to feelings conveyed: isn't this again about semantics? You also state that "The scope of the Media ontology 1.0 is limited to content description." but name both as being content (see first sentence): "...its physical content and its semantic content..." Perhaps you should use terms like structural content descriptions, technical descriptions and semantic content descriptions? * 2.4 Tasks: Perhaps some of the groupings could be adapted. For example Reuse is not alway an editing task, also is Mix an editing task? I would even put e.g. reuse as a new point: reuse could be identical, could be adapted, could be reuse by merging two different media elements, etc. / Personalisation could also be some sort of adaptation * 3 Use Cases - just wanted to generally mention that the use cases are on a different level, sometimes we have media specific (video), classification scheme specific (Tagging), sometimes transport medium specific (mobile). Perhaps we could group the use cases like this: media specific use cases and issues / application case specific issues. * 3.2 (CH) vs 3.5 (Tagging) : In the CH use case you exclude categorization schemes and vocabularies from the scope ot the ontology, but in tagging (which is some sort of categorization or better classification) it is included. What is the general opinion in the group? Does the tagging use case still fit based on the requirements with respect to the other use cases? * A general idea: perhaps we group the requirements according to different metadata types and then refer to these types in each use case and in the requirements summary? I have something in mind like the list you came up at the end of the video use case with different metadata types which are especially useful to support the tasks for this use case... Thats all for the moment. I will have a second look at the current draft later. Best regards, Tobias 이원석 schrieb: > > Dear all, > > Veronique raise the issue of the document format itself. > > Please read below email. > > > > Best regards, > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Wonsuk Lee, Senior Researcher/Ph.d > ETRI, Protocol Engineering Center > 161 Kajong-Dong, Yusong-Gu, Daejeon > 305-700, South Korea > Voice : +82-42-860-4893, > Fax: +82-42-861-5404 > E-mail : wslee@etri.re.kr <BLOCKED::mailto:wslee@etri.re.kr>, > wslee@w3.org <BLOCKED::mailto:wslee@w3.org> > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > *From:* Véronique Malaisé [mailto:vmalaise@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 04, 2008 4:57 PM > *To:* 이원석 > *Cc:* public-media-annotation-request@w3.org; Felix Sasaki; Daniel Park > *Subject:* Re: Initial draft of Use Cases and Requirements for Media > Ontology 1.0 > > > > Dear all, > > > > Please note that the format itself of the document is subject to > discussion, the draft was sent in this format for us to have a rough > version to reflect upon, but suggestions of redesigning the sections > are also welcome. The difficulty here is to integrate the top-down > view with the different use cases, which makes the document more > complex than [1] for example. So any suggestion in that respect is > more than welcome! > > > > Best regards, > > Véronique > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-ucr/ > > > > 2008/11/4 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr <mailto:wslee@etri.re.kr>> > > Dear all, > > > > Please find and review the closed file that is initial draft of Use > Cases and Requirements for Media Ontology 1.0. > > If you have any comments or opinion, please let me know. > > It is more than welcome. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Best regards, > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Wonsuk Lee, Senior Researcher/Ph.d > ETRI, Protocol Engineering Center > 161 Kajong-Dong, Yusong-Gu, Daejeon > 305-700, South Korea > Voice : +82-42-860-4893, > Fax: +82-42-861-5404 > E-mail : wslee@etri.re.kr, wslee@w3.org > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > -- _________________________________________________ Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Tobias Bürger STI Innsbruck University of Innsbruck, Austria http://www.sti-innsbruck.at/ tobias.buerger@sti2.at __________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 18:01:16 UTC