Re: Proposal for ontology and api structure

Hi Silvia, all,

Silvia Pfeiffer さんは書きました:
> Hi Felix, all,
>
> Nice progress!
>
> I only have a brief comment on the API example.
>
> I would not attach the API example to the HTML5 video tag. That
> assumes that the annotation is associated to a video file or at least
> to the video tag in some way. I don't think you can assume that from
> the HTML5 standard or from a video file.
>
> Instead, I would define the API based on having a stand-alone
> annotation file, maybe a RDF file or something.
> And then I would encourage media file formats to encapsulate these
> annotation fields directly into the header of the video files and
> expose these to the video tag in a standard way. This standard way
> could be a javascript API - or maybe preferrably a DOM of its own.
>
> Just my thoughts on this. It is a difficult issue.
>   

Yes, it is. My impression currently is that we have very different 
opinions on this topic. From the browser point of view, some people 
might even want something like
Element vid = doc.getElementById("MyVid");
vid.getCreateDate();
that is, even closer alignment with the video tag. I'm not sure yet what 
the way out is here.

Regards, Felix.

> Regards,
> Silvia.
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:
>   
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have created a proposal for the structure of the ontology and the API. See
>> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-api-1.0/mediaont-api-1.0.html?rev=1.9
>>
>> It would be great to get your feedback on these via mail and / or during
>> the next call (agenda to be provided). Some notes before:
>>
>> - This is only a proposal for the general structure of ontologoy and the
>> API, nothing put in stone, and not a lot of material.
>>
>> - Ontology and API are currently in one draft. The reason is that I
>> think we have agreement that there should be a close alignment between
>> the two, and having one document was an easy way to achieve this.
>>
>> - For the timeline, I mainly would like to discuss this before and at
>> the f2f in Belgium, especially since Raphael is on holiday until then
>> and I know that he already has worked on an ontology, which I think we
>> definitely should take into account.
>>
>> - You might be surprised that the above draft does not contain any
>> formal definition in RDF or a different format. That is on purpose: from
>> the viewpoint of the API, it is sufficient to have for each property a
>> name, an informal description of mappings to existing formats, and the
>> related API methods. The draft contains an example for the createDate
>> property. For other use cases than the API, we might need a more formal
>> description, but I have put the informal one in the center here to see
>> if in that way we can gather the attention of the browser vendor community.
>>
>> - While writing this draft I have not taken the discussion off XMP,
>> transmission.cc or comments on the use cases & requirements document
>> into account. Again this is on purpose, to be able to focus on the API
>> use case - for the time being.
>>
>> Looking forward for your feedback.
>>
>> Regards, Felix
>>
>>
>>
>>

Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 06:31:26 UTC