- From: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:43:41 +0900
- To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
- Cc: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <ba4134970903170643m3eb5ca06ie3d9b7f9ebf2e3cc@mail.gmail.com>
2009/3/17 Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch> > Do we need consensus to repair broken links and reference to websites or > names of specifications ;-) Hi Jean-Pierre, sure, of course we don't :) . Please send the parts to be changed to the editors: veronique, tobias, wonsuk and me. Best, Felix > > > > > -------- Message d'origine-------- > De: felix.sasaki@googlemail.com de la part de Felix Sasaki > Date: mar. 17.03.2009 14:00 > À: Evain, Jean-Pierre > Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org > Objet: Re: RE : Edits of the requirements document - action-85 > > > Hi Jean-Pierre, > > I would propose to send the rewordings to this list and integrate > them as soon as we have consensus on them. > > Felix > > > 2009/3/17 Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch> > > > Dear all, Felix, > > You maybe remember that I suggested 6 weeks ago that some of > the links > regarding TVA and EBU schemas are incorrect. I had been > told that this > would be done later as the document had to be published > a.s.a.p ;-). But it > looks like if it is subject to some significant rewording > and this might be > the opportunity to correct errors. > > Felix, who should I send the corrections to. Please advaise. > > Regards, > > Jean-Pierre > > -------- Message d'origine-------- > De: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org de la > part > de Veronique > Malaise > Date: mar. 17.03.2009 09:29 > À: Felix Sasaki > Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org > Objet: 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.htm > l > Hello Michael, > > thank you very much for your review. > > Michael Hausenblas ????????: > > 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-elementTr > aversal > - "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-r > eqs-20090119/ > < > http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot- > r%0Aeqs-20090119/<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-%0Ar%0Aeqs-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.htm > l > > > 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 > < > http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-reqs-20090119/#uc-cultural-heritag > e%0A-institutions<http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-reqs-20090119/#uc-cultural-heritag%0Ae%0A-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 > > ----------------------------- > > > > ----------------------------------------- > ************************************************** > > This email and any files transmitted with it > are confidential and intended solely for the > use of the individual or entity to whom they > are addressed. > If you have received this email in error, > please notify the system manager. > This footnote also confirms that this email > message has been swept by the mailgateway > > ************************************************** > > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 13:44:23 UTC