- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:08:58 +0900
- To: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- CC: nack@uva.nl, public-media-annotation@w3.org
Hello Frank and Rapahel, thank you very much for your analysis which agree with mostly. I am wondering only and probably again if the way to achieve the properties which Rapahel mentioned could also , in addition to the "top down", "Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records" like approach, a "bottom up" approach which I think David mentioned at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2008Sep/0045.html I am also wondering if we could start work on the API already, and meet in the middle. See *6113* <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6113> Requirement "Allowing for a simple API, abstraction in the ontology, and a clear mediation inbetween" I would also be very happy to volunteer for this. Felix Raphaël Troncy さんは書きました: > > Dear All, > >> The variety of use cases in combination with their internal overlap >> (e.g. larger parts of the 'mobile' use case can also be covered by the >> 'adaptation' and 'presentation' use cases) suggests that a different >> approach might be more useful, namely the analysis versus different >> trajectories: > > I second Frank's analysis. I think I have used a slightly different > terminology during our last phone call, but I meant roughly the same > thing, i.e. I called that different dimensions (or views) through > which we need to look at the problems. These dimensions are orthogonal > so to speak and should not be exclusive or opposed to each other. > >> * the media trajectory: which media particularities do we have to >> describe so that humans can be supported in their working processes. The >> media are different in their expression strength (e.g. visuals are >> strong on their denotative power, where audio or haptics are better in >> stimulating feelings, text is stong on paradigmatic processes). Taking >> in consideration what the cognitive power of a medium is might help us >> to destil the basics to be described to achieve the widest coverage. > > As Frank said, one of these dimension is the media (image, audio, > video) and by extension the modality covered. > >> * the context trajectory: which information elements are necessary to >> achieve the correct context? In the 'mobile' scenario this means: we >> think about what is essential about location and once that is clear we >> determine how that can be minimally described so that a larger variety >> of processes/actions can be performed (I assume we do not model the >> processes but rather design metadata that allow them (the applications) >> to access the appropriate material). > > Exactly, defining the boundaries of the various contexts we consider > and determining which metadata properties should be modeled is one of > our outstanding issues. I had the feeling that brainstorming on > possible scenarios / use cases was a way to achieve this. > >> * the task trajectory: how should, whatever we design, support the >> processes users perform on and with media? Here the questions are: >> - which processes (e.g. search, manipulation, generation, .....) would >> we like to support? >> - do we make a distinction between general and specific tasks (general >> are those that can be found in a number of task processes, such as >> search)? > > What would be a specific task? Could you give an example? > >> - do we have to model the process or is it enough to provide structures >> so that this process can be performed? > > The later. > >> Based on the above we might be able to establish a 'content trajectory' >> with the aim to establish a basic semantic core set of 'tags'. > > I would avoid the term 'tag' in this context and would recommend to > use the term 'description property' or simply 'property'. > >> Finally, during our discussions about the various use cases we already >> saw that there are more general concepts / processes to be described >> (search is one of them) and then quite specific ones. The question we >> would have to answer is - do we actually wish to go into the details or >> rather leave that to the domains - so that we define a basic semantic >> layer that can be used by everybody, enabling the definition of detailed >> substructures underneath (aiming for particular applications). >> >> Not sure what you think about that but look forward to hearing your >> opinion. >> I can try to work these ideas out in a bit more detail for the face to >> face in Cannes if the group thinks that is worthwhile.. > > I think this is the way to go ... > Best regards. > > Raphaël >
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2008 14:09:43 UTC