W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > July 2009

RE: [W3C MAWG] action item 139: Check with Veronique (and Victor) the improvements 9-11 in the list.

From: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:07:10 +0900
Message-ID: <B4EAD1122C31304099A5CDEA5447210F019093E8@email2>
To: "Veronique Malaise" <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
Cc: "Florian Stegmaier" <stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de>, <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Dear Veronique.

Thank you for your action.


I would like to improve the current texts of ontology doc with your proposal.

A few minutes ago, I responded for you e-email. ;)


And your contribution in September is good to me because of 2nd October is due day for the second publication of ontology doc.


Thank you 


Best regards



From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Veronique Malaise
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:13 PM
To: Florian Stegmaier
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: [W3C MAWG] action item 139: Check with Veronique (and Victor) the improvements 9-11 in the list.


Dear all,


And since them I did edit this section about the definition of an Ontology, and pointed to Wonsuk the part of the Ontology document where it can be copy-pasted. I also suggested several changes to the Media Ontology document's introduction section and I think that it would be good to go through the whole document once again, for the sake of clarity and coherence between the parts that have been changed independently. I will unfortunately not have the time to do this before September, because I have some deadlines before Aug 12, date at which I'll take my holidays.






On Jul 21, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Florian Stegmaier wrote:

Dear all,


Here the email regarding the action item assigned to me.





Anfang der weitergeleiteten E-Mail:

Von: Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>

Datum: 29. Juni 2009 13:00:27 MESZ

An: stegmai <stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de>

Kopie: victorr@ac.upc.edu, 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>

Betreff: Re: MAWG: question regarding ontology 1.0 doc




	We just went though the improvement list [1] in the F2F in order to thin it

	out. There are 3 items (item 9-11), which came up in one of your emails. We

	are not quiet sure, if they are already solved.

Item 9 is solved, item 10: I have no particular belief about how to name this section, I was just raising the point in order to be sure that people agree on the section label, item 11: to my knowledge, this definition of what we mean by onotlogy is not explicitely specified in the document yet. Should I make a proposal and send it to the list before tomorrow's call? It is a matter of one or two lines, to say what an ontolgoy can be and what it is in our case :)




	Are these items allready closed form your side?











Dipl. Inf. Florian Stegmaier
Chair of Distributed Information Systems
University of Passau
Innstr. 43
94032 Passau

Room 248 ITZ
Tel.: +49 851 509 3063
Fax: +49 851 509 3062
stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de <mailto:hoelblin@fim.uni-passau.de> 


Quote of the week: Computer. This is a Class-A compulsory directive. Compute, to the last digit, the value of pi. (Spock)








Received on Wednesday, 22 July 2009 08:07:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:36 UTC