- From: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:28:14 +0200
- To: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>
- CC: Chris.Poppe@UGent.be, public-media-annotation@w3.org
> What kind of API style is appropriate for our API ? > > a) Specific API corresponded to each property (e.g. mawg-getCreator(); ) > – Pro: Enable to provide easy APIs to the developers > – Con: Can reduce the flexibility of API because whenever defining > the new property, new API should be developed The set of properties provided by MAWG will be finite and fixed once the MA ontology is a rec, so I cannot really see a cons here ... > b) Common API for handling all properties via input parameter (e.g. > get-mawg-unstructured-value( property-name, …); ) > – Pro: Can provide the better flexibility > – Con: Can provide complex API because of data type of input > parameter and return value I can really see the 'pro' here, with a developer hat-on, I cannot see where and why I would use get-mawg-unstructured-value( property-name, ...) :-( So my preference is a big a)! Raphaël -- Raphaël Troncy EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department 2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France. e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2009 08:29:09 UTC