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

Re: Publishing the Mapping Table (was minutes of 2009-03-10 teleconference)

From: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:39:59 +0900
Message-ID: <ba4134970903170439i79be4c14s53ec4505ee046d25@mail.gmail.com>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Cc: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Just to confirm that I agree with all what Raphael said. A big plus 1!


2009/3/17 RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>

> Dear all,
>  I understand that we can't publish without agreement from the Working
>> Group. I hope that we can have a discussion here or next week on the call. I
>> will also work with Raphael offline and try to reach a consensus.
> After a quick chat yesterday with Felix, I have a bit clarified some
> misunderstandings and concerns I had. They can be summarized as follows:
>  1) The document needs of course to pass the pubrules [minor since it can
> be easily fixed as Thierry has pointed out]
>  2) The document needs to warn the reader that (s)he will find a set of
> mappings established between various multimedia metadata formats with XMP as
> pivot BUT:
>  - 2a. that this list of formats is not closed, nor pretend to be
> exhaustive and that the group still looks at rationale for including and
> excluding formats to be considered in the final mapping table;
>  - 2b. that the semantics of the mapping is that the two properties are
> somehow related, without further specifying the nature of this relationship
> (i.e. equivalence, sub-property, related, disjoint?, etc.)
>  - 2c. that the somehow relatedness might be or might not be transitive
>  - 2d: that the rationale behind this relatedness is not explained yet but
> it is the intention of the WG to do so.
>  3) The document needs to either present a big table with all formats and
> cross-relationships (*my* preference) or a set of N small tables with XMP as
> pivot. The former has the benefit of providing a larger view but might imply
> the transitivity of the mapping which can be leveraged with the warning 2c.
> The latter has the exact counter argument.
> Finally, the reader could comment on any of these mappings (again taken
> with a lot of precaution) and that the WG would expect new potential
> mappings or correction of existing ones with preferably a rationale text
> based on the usage of the formats considered.
> Providing all that, I have no objection to publish this document asap,
> though I think it would be good to discuss it in f2f in Barcelona prior to
> the publication.
>  " This ontology would help circumventing the current profileration of
>> video metadata formats by providing full or partial translation and mapping
>> between the existing formats."
>> this reads to me like that the ontology will provide the mapping, and not
>> the working group note. Also, the discussions during the last weeks about
>> formalizing the mapping within the table sound like that people regard the
>> table as a first step (or a main input) to the ontology.
> I agree with that. I see the mapping table as the first step to the Media
> Ontology (thus the req track document), and actually the best piece of work
> done so far in the group.
> Best regards.
>  RaphaŽl
> --
> RaphaŽl Troncy
> CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science),
> Science Park 123, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands
> e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
> Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093
> Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312
> Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/ <http://www.cwi.nl/%7Etroncy/>
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 11:40:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:34 UTC