comments about the Use Case and Requirements document

Dear all,

I think that the document is very nice now, but I still have a list of comments. 
I copy-paste it below, -> means a rewriting proposition or a question/comment 
that I have. Can the authors of the different use cases check out that I 
understood their text correctly and would the people of the group agree with the 
proposed changes? What is your opinion about the questions/comments?

Best regards,
Véronique


Purpose of the Ontology and the API
The following figure visualizes the purpose of the ontology of the API and their 
relation to applications.
->

Mobile use case:
To be done or removed from the list (and all the references to this use case)

Interoperability between Media resources across Cultural Heritage Institutions
Editorial note to be removed

Recommendation across different media types
One of their service is to recommend users potentially like programs based on 
watching history or explicit rating on programs.
-> One of their service is to recommend users programs that are potentially 
close to their interests, based on watching history
To recommend programs uniformly without a common set of vocabularies, they need 
to design own integrated media annotation model.
-> they have to design their own (integrated) media annotation model. 

Life Log
A person captures his experience as well as their entire lives by creating 
images, audios and videos in the web. 
"as well as their entire lives" ->
"videos in the web" -> on the Web.
They are namely a life logs today.
-> These are called "Life Logs" nowadays.
Those life logs are made by various information such as time, location, 
creator's profile, human relations, and even emotion.
-> Those Life Logs contain various information
In case the life logs are accessibly by means of the ontology, he/she can easily 
and efficiently search for his/her personal life log information
-> If accessed via an ontology providing links between the different metadata 
used to describe these various information, a user could easily and efficiently 
search for his or her personal Life Log information
-> remove ", whenever necessary" at the end of the sentence.
-> one question: are people only interested in their own data? Or also other 
people's data? The latter would also make sense to me.

Access via web client to metadata in heterogeneous formats
Nevertheless it is mentioned separately since, different to other requirements, 
its implementation requires only a small set of requirements.
-> Nevertheless it is mentioned separately since, at the difference from other 
requirements, 
Also, the purpose of this use case is not to require or to propose developing a 
query language on its own. However, the ontology can be used as an input for the 
development of such a language.
-> these two sentences are quite unclear to me...
-> how is this use case different from the ex-Cultural Heritage use case? It 
looks like a task-oriented description of the same use case to me...

User generated Metadata
-> I think that only one of the two examples would be sufficient.
-> I do not see explicitely what the Media Ontology would bring to this case: 
would it bridge the gap between the vocabularies and provide only one interface 
for the personal annotation?

Requirements section
6.3 Requirement r03: Providing in the API a means for supporting structured 
annotations
-> does the group still agree to implement this requirement? 
6.10 Requirement r10: Being able to describe fragments of media objects
-> would this not be the purpose of the Media Fragment Working Group?

Received on Saturday, 28 March 2009 11:42:26 UTC