Re: Review of 'Use Cases and Requirements for Ontology and API for Media Object 1.0', Working Draft 19 January 2009

Felix,

Most of the stuff seems sorted, thanks. Remaining points inline:

> I think that the paragraph
> "An important aspect of the above figure is that everything visualized
> above the API is left to applications, like: languages for simple or
> complex queries, analysis of user preferences (like "preferring movies
> with actor X and suitable for children"), or other mechanisms for
> accessing metadata. The ontology and the API provide merely a basic,
> simple means of interoperability for such applications."
> Tries to answer some of your questions.

Some, yes ;)

Seriously, I *think* it would be good to have the ontology as the primary
model and derive the API from it (automagically?) if possible. I must admit
that I still didn't entirely grok how these two things play together. Assume
for a second that I'm a total noob - how'd you explain that in some simple
language?

>> + Regarding '6.7 Requirement r07: Introducing several abstraction levels in
>> the ontology' I'd say this is an absolute must.
> 
> Do you have any existing implemention we could look at to be able to
> judge the efforts of this?

Well, yes, I guess so, see [1] and [2]; its from the audio domain and the
chap behind it, Yves Raimond, is lurking here around as well, so he may be
able to chip in ;)

Mostly I'd recommend to focus on FRBR [3], but I guess the real expert is
actually Yves. Ah, I'll CC him and see what happens ...
 
>> + the TOC is not well-formatted, although pubrule-checker [2] seems not to
>> complain - rather use use <ol> and <li>
>>   
> mm ... I checked
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-req
> s-20090119/
> and did not see any problems. Could you point me to the markup part
> which you think has a problem?

Well, true. As I said. It's perfectly *valid*, it's about the markup you are
using (list rather <p> + <br/>) ...

> I did not see any comments on the requirements which I think are the
> most important "message" of the WD. Do you think these need a revision
> or are stable? 

Seems pretty stable, beside my comments ;)

Cheers,
      Michael

[1] 
http://wiki.musicontology.com/index.php/Structural_annotations_of_%22Can%27t
_buy_me_love%22_by_the_Beatles
[2] http://dbtune.org/henry/
[3] http://www.loc.gov/cds/downloads/FRBR.PDF

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan,
Galway, Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://sw-app.org/about.html


> From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
> Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 08:25:05 +0900
> To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
> Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>, <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Review of 'Use Cases and Requirements for Ontology and API for
> Media  Object 1.0', Working Draft 19 January 2009
> 
> Hello Michael,
> 
> thank you very much for your review.
> 
> Michael Hausenblas さんは書きました:
>> All,
>> 
>> As of my action [1] I was appointed to review your Working Draft from 19
>> January 2009 regarding 'Use Cases and Requirements for Ontology and API for
>> Media Object 1.0'.
>> 
>> Short version: Nice use cases and good requirements. In order to increase
>> readability, the content needs to be improved, esp. sections 1 to 4.
>> 
>> Full version:
>> 
>> ===============
>>  Major issues
>> ===============
>> 
>> + Add a clear scope paragraph. I learned very late (somewhere in the section
>> '1. Introduction') that you are actually mainly targeting videos.
>>   
> 
> Agree.
> 
>> + Even though I always believed I know my work I was not able to decode:
>> 'The "Ontology for Media Object 1.0" will address the intercompatiblity
>> problem by providing a common set of properties to define the basic metadata
>> needed for media objects and the semantic links between their values in
>> different existing vocabularies.'
>> 
>>  - what is 'intercompatiblity'?
>>  - what are media objects?
>>  - what are semantic links?
>>   
> 
> Agree that this can be made clearer.
> 
> 
>> + And it continues: 'The scope is mainly video media objects, but we take
>> also other media objects into account if their metadata information is
>> related to video.'
>> 
>>  - how related?
>>  - which metadata?
>>   
> 
> 
> For "how related" I would say "if the metadata information can also be
> applied to video, but not only to video, e.g. the creation date". For
> "which medata", this is a question to be answered in the future.
> 
>> + The figure in section '3 Purpose of the Ontology and the API' is nice but
>> somehow questionable. Do user adapt the API? Do user visualise the API?
>> Isn't the ontology itself the API? In which language (formal or logic-based)
>> is it defined? What *is* the API?
>>   
> 
> I think that the paragraph
> "An important aspect of the above figure is that everything visualized
> above the API is left to applications, like: languages for simple or
> complex queries, analysis of user preferences (like "preferring movies
> with actor X and suitable for children"), or other mechanisms for
> accessing metadata. The ontology and the API provide merely a basic,
> simple means of interoperability for such applications."
> Tries to answer some of your questions.
> - Adaptation of the API: if the API is changed it is not the API we will
> have defined anymore.
> - Visualize: see "... is left to the application", so "no"
> - ontology = API: no, see also
> http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-req/mediaont-req.html#req-r05
> - "in which language ...": see as a potential example, which is neither
> formal nor logic-based
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-ElementTraversal-20081222/#interface-elementTrav
> ersal
> - "what is the API". Again see
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-ElementTraversal-20081222/
> As an example of an API specification we are aiming at IMO.
> 
>> + Rather than having an almost empty section '4 Terminology' that merely
>> refers to RFC2119 you should use this space to define *your* terms (such as
>> media object).
>>   
> 
> Such a section will be part of the API and the ontology specifications.
> 
>> + In section '5.6 User generated Metadata' you use RDF/Turtle without any
>> warning, hint or reference.
>>   
> 
> Good point, a warning and references seem to be appropriate.
> 
>> + Regarding '6.7 Requirement r07: Introducing several abstraction levels in
>> the ontology' I'd say this is an absolute must.
> 
> Do you have any existing implemention we could look at to be able to
> judge the efforts of this?
> 
>> If you can't talk about the
>> different abstraction layers, I guess the effort is pretty worthless.
>>   
> 
> At the TPAC meeting in October we had a presentation from a video search
> engine with not more than *five*, "flat" properties, see
> http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-mediaann-minutes.html#item01
> I think we saw a metadata mapping which was very useful and worth it, so
> I would disagree with your statement above.
> 
>> =================
>>  Minor issues
>> =================
>> 
>> + the TOC is not well-formatted, although pubrule-checker [2] seems not to
>> complain - rather use use <ol> and <li>
>>   
> 
> mm ... I checked
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-req
> s-20090119/
> and did not see any problems. Could you point me to the markup part
> which you think has a problem?
> 
>> + in the section 'B References' the labels of [XGR Image Annotation] and
>> [XGR Vocabularies] are mixed up (I think I remember seeing the latter
>> document already, somewhere ;)
>>   
> 
> Good point, to be fixed.
> 
>> + you want to go for a W3C Note, right? Then you want to remove the
>> '(non-normative)' part in the references. You are not normative, hence as
>> well not non-normative.
>>   
> 
> I had thought so too, but see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2008Dec/0084.html
> 
>> All this said I guess you need a major revision of this WD.
> 
> I did not see any comments on the requirements which I think are the
> most important "message" of the WD. Do you think these need a revision
> or are stable? How would you fill the beginning of sec. 6
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-reqs-20090119/#requirements
> "This sections describes requirements for the ontology and the API. The
> Working Group has agreed to implement the following requirements. "
> ...
> "The requirements which the Working Group currently does not have
> agreement to take into account are the following:"
> 
> Felix
> 
>>  I think the UC
>> and the requirements as they are present are valuable and convincing, but
>> the reader needs more explanation in the beginning. You can't assume that
>> everyone has followed your WG-internal discussions and instantly knows what
>> you mean by media object or API.
>> 
>> 
>> Tracker, this is ACTION-36 and I'm gonna close it.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>>       Michael
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/media-annot-reqs/,pubrules
>> 
>>   
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 23:17:16 UTC