Re: Proposal for ontology and api structure

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Felix Sasaki <> wrote:
> 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.

That would require the video tag to expose a javascript API with that
functionality. But where does the video tag get that information from?
It can either come from within the video file (where in turn you
require an API towards the video) or it comes from an external file
that is related to the video (e.g. a RDF file) through another

I agree that such a functionality would be nice to have. But it's up
to the HTML5 WG to define this API, really. All we can define here is
the API to the annotation file or propose an API into the video
formats that include the annotation tags inside themselves.

That's all I was thinking.


Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 07:48:24 UTC