- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:13:09 +1100
- To: Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>
- Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org, Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com>
I don't think the group has decided yet whether a low value in question 3 is good or bad. When I filled in the questionnaire, I regarded complexity as a bad thing. Therefore, a low number in question 3 would mean (at least for some of us) that it is less relevant to be examined. We have multiple alternate ways forward from here: 1. have another survey to determine whether complexity in a format is a preferrable 2. have another survey that does not ask 3 questions, but only one about which format the group wants to work on - that can then include iTunesRSS and whatever else was overseen the first time 3. run with the current result, accepting its shortcomings In my personal opinion, I don't think we need to be afraid to undertake this survey again. We have identified shortcomings of the previous approach and should address them. We're not such a large group that re-running the survey implies a major nuisance. Just my 2c. :-) Cheers, Silvia. 2009/3/18 Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>: > Dear all, > The results from the format survey can be summarized as follows (the lowest sum wins): > > Media RSS 2+1+3= 6 > EXIF 1+5+1= 7 > Youtube 4+2+4= 10 > TV-Anytime 5+7+3=15 > ID3 frames 5+4+7=16 > MPEG-7 =8+6+2= 16 > EBUCore 7+3+8= 19 > > This indicates the groups' average level of interest for each format. > Unfortunately iTunes ant QT was not added to the survey, since it appeared later in the mapping table. The chairs of the group regret this and it was recorded at today's telecom that there is an interest in the group for those formats as well (see minutes to appear at: http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-mediaann-minutes.html). These formats are included in the table for review: > http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/Format_mapping_review#Reference_Material > > > The purpose of this activity was to achieve a consensus on which formats to put more attention to during the review and editing process. Hopefully this collaborative work is of a generic character and can be reused for the other more complex or specific formats. > > Regards > Joakim > > >
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 21:13:49 UTC