Re: Definition of subproperties and way forward

+1 from my side as well.

But as PA suggested, we should consider the necessary "placeholders" in 
case we introduce subproperties in the future.

Best

Tobias

Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:
>
> +1, JP
>
>  
>
> *From:* public-media-annotation-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Daniel Park
> *Sent:* lundi, 23. novembre 2009 12:39
> *To:* public-media-annotation@w3.org
> *Subject:* Definition of subproperties and way forward
>
>  
>
> Folks,
>
>  
>
> We spent too much time for that issue both in Santa Clara and in 
> mailing list. It's time to come up with a direction at this stage I 
> believe. I (chair hat-on) don't have an objection with the summary 
> below from Felix, also, that seems to us very reasonable way for the 
> first step...
>
>  
>
> Call for your opinion, any strong objection ?
>
>  
>
> It will be also discussed finally at upcoming teleconf tomorrow.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Daniel
>
>
> -- 
> Soohong Daniel Park
> Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D
> http://sites.google.com/site/natpt00
>
> [cut-and-paste]
>
> There seems to be one open question to me: Is it OK for us to start 
> work on subproperties although we have not reached our goals even with 
> the simple properties? IMO, we should first for all simple properties
> - define the API methods (done to some extend)
> - provide test cases and test suite material (not done at all)
> - run the tests with at least two implementations
> so that we can be sure to declare victory, even if we don't get to the 
> sub property part.
> So I am saying not "no" about sub properties, but postpone work on 
> them until we have done our basic job.
>
> Would you and others agree with that?
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>

-- 
_________________________________________________
Dr. Tobias Bürger

STI Innsbruck
University of Innsbruck, Austria
http://www.sti-innsbruck.at/ 

tobias.buerger@sti2.at
__________________________________________________

Received on Monday, 23 November 2009 12:34:48 UTC