Re: Edits of the requirements document - action-85

Hi all,

I also updated the Cultural Heritage use case, if you have some  
comments about it, they are more than welcome of course.

Best regards,
Véronique


On Mar 16, 2009, at 8:01 PM, Felix Sasaki wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> here are the results of editing I did to the requirements document.  
> See summary of the comments and the edits (marked as "FS") below.  
> Sorry that this is a long mail, please search for "FS" to see what I  
> did. See also a diff document to the first public draft at
> http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-req/diff.html
>
> -----------------------------
> Comments from Raphael - to be edited by FS
> -----------------------------
> FS: Most of these were made before the first draft publication and  
> major rewrite, and I hope all are addressed now.
>
>
> * Status of this document: it is outdated for this document. I think  
> it is aimed to be a Working Group Note rather than a Rec.
> FS: done for the publication
>
> * Section 1: 'concret' -> concrete
> FS: not in the draft anymore
>
> FS: The whole section 2 is not in the draft anymore, so I did not go  
> through these comments.
> * Section 2.1: Overview
>  - The 3 dimensions fall a bit from the sky, making the reading a  
> bit dry. Is it possible to add some references showing where these 3  
> dimensions come from?
>  - The current text contains a lot of questions ... "for us", so I  
> guess not meant for the working draft reader. Are they? For example:  
> should we keep the sentence: "Taking in consideration what the  
> cognitive power of a medium is might help us to distill the basics  
> to be described to achieve the widest coverage"? Or should be turn  
> it into something like: "Taking in consideration what the cognitive  
> power of a medium is enables to distill the basics to be described  
> to achieve the widest coverage"?
>  - Similarly, the text that describes the 3rd dimension (the task)  
> contains numerous questions. Would we like to keep them as it is? It  
> seems to me that the text should answer to these questions and not  
> exposed to the reader of the document.
>  - The last sentence of the 5th paragraph is ambiguous: "The scope  
> of the Media ontology 1.0 is limited to content description". Do you  
> mean the physical content? the semantic content? both?
>  - What means DC at the end of the 6th paragraph? Is there some  
> missing text? Is it a reference to the new working drafts of Dublin  
> Core that envisages to have wh* relationships? Furthermore, it would  
> be interesting to detail which explicit relationships the standards  
> mentioned (CIDOC, MPEG-7, WHOS, MF) allow. Is it possible to precise  
> them?
>  - In the 6th paragraph: 'witout' -> without; 'connceted' -> connected
> Furthermore, I suggest to rephrase the following sentence:
> "making links or graphs to connect the different pieces of the  
> annotation that belong together is very important for the precision/ 
> enhancing the search".
>  - Is it a requirement of the Media Ontology to enable relation  
> relationships?
>  - The 7th paragraph contains numerous questions that I guess should  
> not be there but answered.
>
> * Section 2.2: Media
>  - Do we really consider all the media mentioned?
>  - Providing examples would help to understand what do you mean by  
> 'static', 'interactive', 'fixed', 'mobile', 'realistic', 'abstract',  
> etc.
>  - The authors say that "Queries need to be enabled to search on the  
> following dimensions:" but then I'm confused. The first two  
> dimensions are about the subject matter, the semantic content, which  
> I thought was address by the 2nd dimension (context). The 3rd one  
> introduces the notion of form of the media. Why not then adding the  
> genre, another component that is indispensable in EPG?
>
> * Section 2.3: Context
> The text ends abruptly, I guess there is some text missing.
>
> * Section 2.4: Task
>  - 'maintaining' -> maintain
>  - Add a reference to the canonical processes
>
> * Section 3.1: Video
> FS: not in the draft anymore
>  - Which video services sites are you considering? Video search  
> engines? Video sharing web sites? I think they have different  
> requirements ...
>  - I do not understand the problem explained in the 2nd and 3rd  
> paragraph. What is the task? I guess the task is not to specify what  
> an API should return for a particular command ... Getting the songs  
> 'composed by' Dvorak? Then a full text search will work in both cases.
>  - I disagree with the NOTE, as I believe the aim of the Media  
> Ontology is to solve the semantic mismatch between the existing  
> formats as much as possible.
>  - The last paragraph also introduces bad practices. Do not split  
> properties (first name, family name, etc.) but just use URIs for  
> identifying resources, and you get them for free.
>  - The requirements talked about "commonly used properties for  
> describing video content, from these different standards". Is it  
> possible to detail these properties that should be covered by the  
> Media Ontology?
>
> * Section 3.2: Cultural Heritage
>  - I like the description of the use case but I do not understand  
> what are the requirements. The requirements paragraph does not seem  
> to exhibit any particular requirement, or at least, it is not clear  
> to me.
> FS: the requirements and the use case description have been  
> rewritten and are worked on again by Veronique currently
>
> * Section 3.3: Mobile
>  - 'foramts' -> formats
>  - Interoperability with formats for identification on the Web seems  
> a requirement in this use case. Is it possible to list these formats?
> FS: the whole use case needs to be rewritten. I propose to do that  
> after the next draft publication.
>
> * Section 3.4:
> FS: section has been dropped
>  - I don't understand what this use case is about. Is it about  
> "Interoperability for IPTV"? I would then suggest this new title.
>  - The authors said: "In MPEG-7, there are parts related to this  
> problem". Which parts the authors refer to?
>
> * Section 3.5: Tagging
> FS: section has been dropped
>  - I think this use case is partially out of scope. I explained: the  
> XG use case covers two sides of the coin. People tag on different  
> platforms, and one concern would be to identify uniquely these tags  
> so that they can be reused cross platforms. I think this part is out  
> of scope for the Media Ontology, and some initiatives such as  
> TagCare deals with that problem! The other side of the coin is the  
> properties that allow the tagging such as the TAG ontology or MOAT.  
> I think the Media Ontology should be interoperable with MOAT.
>
> * Section 3.6: Life Log
> FS: section has been rewritten, could you check again? The 3  
> dimensions were not used, as in all other cases.
>  - What is this use case about? Is it possible to describe it in  
> terms of the 3 dimensions (media, context, task) like the other use  
> cases?
>
> Hope that helps!
> Best regards.
> -----------------------------
> changes proposed from Michael Hausenblas, to be edited by FS. My  
> remarks are mentioned via "FS" again.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Feb/0006.html
> 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.
>
> FS: I added a scope paragraph in the abstract and repeated it in the  
> introduction.
>
> > + 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.
> FS: I rewrote the paragraph:
> "The "Ontology for Media Object 1.0" will address the  problem of  
> heterogeneous metadata for multimedia objects by providing a common  
> set of properties. It will also help circumventing the current  
> proliferation of video metadata formats by providing full or partial  
> translation and mapping between the existing formats. The ontology  
> will be accompanied by an API that provides uniform access to all  
> elements defined by the ontology, which are selected elements from  
> different formats."
>
> > + 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-elementTraversal
> - "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-reqs-20090119/
> and did not see any problems. Could you point me to the markup part
> which you think has a problem?
>
> FS: that is fixed now
>
> > + 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.
> FS: 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
> >
> >
>
>
> -----------------------------
> Mobile use case, to be edited by probably Tobias
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-reqs-20090119/#Mobile
> -----------------------------
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-reqs-20090119/#uc-cultural-heritage-institutions
> Use case "cultural heritage insitutions", to be edited by Veronique
> -----------------------------
> Comments form Dan Conolly, to be edited by FS later. Could we check  
> these tomorrow again?
>
>     * please separate objective, testable requirements from goals/ 
> principles Dan Connolly
> FS: to be done after next call
>     * please use a different label for requirements without WG  
> support Dan Connolly
> FS: to be done after next call
>
> -----------------------------