- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:52:10 +0900
- To: Ruben Tous <rtous@ac.upc.edu>
- CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Ruben Tous さんは書きました: > > Dear Felix, Silvia, all, > > Nice progress. Regarding the API example, I agree with Silvia in > having an example decoupled from HTML5. I agree with not being coupled to HTML 5, and have changed the API example in sec. 5.1: Element vid = doc.getElementById("MyVid"); Metadata o2 = vid.getMetadata(); o2.getCreateDate(); > Maybe it is a naive idea, but why not making an API independent from > the metadata embodiment (language and binding) and using just an URI > to refer to the media object or fragment? we could have a method o2.load("blurp2.xmp"); for reading metadata. Felix > > By the way, I've uploaded a preliminary version of the Digital Imaging > Lifecycle UC to the wiki. I'm still working with Jaime and Victor on > it, but this way you can check its state and give us some feedback. > > Best regards, > > Ruben > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Silvia Pfeiffer" > <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> > To: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org> > Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org> > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 8:47 AM > Subject: Re: Proposal for ontology and api structure > > >> >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> 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 >> attribute. >> >> 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. >> >> Cheers, >> Silvia. >> >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 02:52:48 UTC