- From: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
- Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 23:22:31 +0900
- To: "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
- Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <ba4134970905040722i3021ef16i2f3d74c0cf996f1b@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks, Werner, I agree with your description. IMO "1" is provided by the media fragements WD, see the section I cited, and "2" is to have a property like ma:fragID which has as a value a piece of media fragment URI syntax. Felix 2009/5/4 Bailer, Werner <werner.bailer@joanneum.at> > Dear Felix, David, > > In my opinion there are two aspects related to fragments: > > 1. defining the range of possible values for the different types of > fragments > -- for spatial and temporal fragments, this is already defined by frame > width/height and duration > -- for track fragments this would require describing the list/type of > channels (I mentioned that in my "wish list" for technical metadata) > -- for named fragments this would be the list of labels > > This will allow to specify valid fragment identifiers and to use them to > request annotations (the returned set might of course be empty). > > 2. a list of fragments that are interesting, annotated, ... > IMO this is similar to the cue ranges David mentioned, however, using media > fragment URI syntax it would essentially be a list of fragment identifiers, > independent of the type of fragment. > > Best regards, > Werner > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org > > [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of > > Felix Sasaki > > Sent: Samstag, 02. Mai 2009 07:15 > > To: David Singer > > Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org > > Subject: Re: Properties for media fragment? > > > > > > > > 2009/5/1 David Singer <singer@apple.com> > > > > > > At 11:06 +0200 1/05/09, Felix Sasaki wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I had a look at the very impressive working > > draft of the media fragments wg. This section > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-frags-reqs-20090430/#MediaF > ragmentApproaches <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-frags-> > reqs-20090430/#MediaFragmentApproaches> > > made me think whether we could benefit from two > > properties > > spatialMediaFragment > > temporalMediaFragment > > and potentially > > namedMediaFragment > > the mappings are already in the section cited > > above, inclding the potential return types for the API. > > > > > > are these annotations or requests? I have a harder > > time seeing them as annotations. > > > > > > List of my favorite scences of a video, as part of the video > > metadata? Does that not make sense? > > > > Felix > > > > > > > > > > But I do see a declarative syntax for 'cue ranges' as a > > possible desirable candidate. > > <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#cue-ranges> > > > > > > > > > > Comments? > > > > Felix > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > David Singer > > Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc. > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 4 May 2009 14:23:12 UTC