- From: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:01:40 +0200
- To: Media Annotation <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
All,
The minutes are available for review at
http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-mediaann-minutes.html
Cheers.
Raphaël
----
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Media Annotations Working Group Teleconference
15 Sep 2009
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Sep/0033.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-mediaann-irc
Attendees
Present
Joakim, Chris, Florian, Raphael, Veronique, Pierre_Antoine,
Thierry, Wonsuk, Daniel
Regrets
Tobias, Werner, Felix
Chair
Joakim
Scribe
raphael
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]1. Admin
2. [6]2. Action items
3. [7]3. Status of First WD of API
4. [8]4. AOB
* [9]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 15 September 2009
<florian> Zakim aaee is me
<scribe> Scribe: raphael
<scribe> scribenick: raphael
1. Admin
<joakim> [10]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/08-mediaann-minutes.html
[10] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/08-mediaann-minutes.html
Proposal to accept minutes of last week telecon
No objections, minutes accepted
<pchampin> i volunteer
Pierre Antoine volunteered for scribing next week meeting
2. Action items
<joakim>
[11]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/open
[11] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/open
ACTION-124?
<trackbot> ACTION-124 -- Felix Sasaki to check - everybody
responsible for a format: add a column describing syntactic
information ("data types", see cable lab column "Type") to his table
-- due 2009-06-16 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[12]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/124
[12] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/124
<scribe> -- ongoing
ACTION-134?
<trackbot> ACTION-134 -- David Singer to revise e-mail on
issues/updates of property description -- due 2009-07-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[13]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/134
[13] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/134
<scribe> -- ongoing
ACTION-135?
<trackbot> ACTION-135 -- David Singer to update description of
location to represent shot location -- due 2009-07-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[14]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/135
[14] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/135
<scribe> -- ongoing
ACTION-136?
<trackbot> ACTION-136 -- Joakim Söderberg to will refine the
subtypes, like ma:contributor, ma:publisher etc. -- due 2009-07-02
-- OPEN
<trackbot>
[15]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/136
[15] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/136
Joakim: I put a link on the wiki
close ACTION-136
<trackbot> ACTION-136 Will refine the subtypes, like ma:contributor,
ma:publisher etc. closed
ACTION-148?
<trackbot> ACTION-148 -- WonSuk Lee to start work and collaboration
on the API draft document -- due 2009-07-03 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[16]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/148
[16] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/148
Wonsuk: you have all received the email from Florian about the
issues
... I suggest we discuss these issues
Joakim: we will discuss them in the next agenda item, we can close
this AP
close ACTION-148
<trackbot> ACTION-148 Start work and collaboration on the API draft
document closed
ACTION-151?
<trackbot> ACTION-151 -- Werner Bailer to formulate an answer on the
feed back from PFWG (Protocols and Formats WG) -- due 2009-09-08 --
OPEN
<trackbot>
[17]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/151
[17] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/151
Werner did that and we sent our review
close ACTION-151
<trackbot> ACTION-151 Formulate an answer on the feed back from PFWG
(Protocols and Formats WG) closed
ACTION-152
ACTION-152?
<trackbot> ACTION-152 -- Thierry Michel to look into web idl with
victor and others -- due 2009-09-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[18]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/152
[18] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/152
Thierry: i start a thread discussion,
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009
Sep/0035.html
... Victor confirmed that WebIDL could be used, as we do video on
the web
... no bindings for C++, but more tailored to web based applications
so fit our purpose
... webidl is anyway close to idl
[19]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Sep/0035.html
<pchampin> +1
close ACTION-152
<trackbot> ACTION-152 Look into web idl with victor and others
closed
ACTION-153?
<trackbot> ACTION-153 -- Joakim Söderberg to look into comments from
werner on PFWG review -- due 2009-09-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[20]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/153
[20] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/153
Joakim: this action is connected to 151
close ACTION-153
<trackbot> ACTION-153 Look into comments from werner on PFWG review
closed
ACTION-154?
<trackbot> ACTION-154 -- Joakim Söderberg to ask dave about the
relationship of digital data exchange with Apple stuff, ID3,
iTunesXML, etc -- due 2009-09-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[21]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/154
[21] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/154
Joakim: I have sent an email but didn't get any answer
... leave it open
<scribe> -- ongoing
3. Status of First WD of API
<joakim> I think this initial draft is a good starting point. But
there are a few major things, i am wondering about:
<joakim> a) what about using interfaces as Victor proposed in
[$1\47]?
<joakim> b) did we choose one of the two possibilities for the API
already (specific vs. common)? AFAIK only a few of us discussed
these two different approaches [$1\47].
<joakim> c) the datatypes are only "placeholder" for the finite
datatypes, or? Because some of them do not fit their purpose i
guess.
<joakim> d) as Victor already pointed out, WebIDL is in scope of our
group, so we should bring this discussion to an end and use it...
<joakim> I think we have to discuss this draft more closely in
todays telecon.
<florian>
[22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009
Sep/0037.html
[22]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Sep/0037.html
Wonsuk: I haven't received many feedback yet on my document apart
from Florian
... you can look at the API description (descriptive properties,
identification, creator, content, etc)
... it includes the get and the set methods
it describes the interfaces based on toy implementation
Wonsuk: I suggest we discuss the issues mentioned in this document
Joakim: you want to discuss the categorization of the properties?
<chris> this classification conforms to the current mapping table
Wonsuk: do you have any questions about this?
[silence]
Joakim: is this categorization so important ?
Document from Victor:
[23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009
Aug/att-0007/magw-idl.pdf
[23]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Aug/att-0007/magw-idl.pdf
Document from Wonsuk: replace_URL
s/replace_URL/[24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-a
nnotation/2009Sep/0037.html
[24]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Sep/0037.html
Could we please avoid to send documents to individual people? I will
remind that this group operates under public, so use the public
mailing list
<florian> +1 raphael
Joakim: now, we need to discuss the datatypes
Wonsuk: the meaning of the RESULT is ... [to complete]
Joakim: should we have a section discussing the return types?
Wonsuk: yes perhaps, we have String, RESULT, List, Date
<chris> URI
<joakim> I guess it means: sucessful/unsuccesfull
Wonsuk: trying to explain again what RESULT is ...
... it means we can parse the result ? (syntactically correct?)
<pchampin> RESULT is what is sometimes called 'status', right?
<joakim> while (RESULT)
Wonsuk: yes, for while and if, we can use RESULT, so looks like a
boolean evaluation
<joakim> I agree
<joakim> 3. Data type Description
<joakim> 4. API Description
Wonsuk: discussion about identificatin of the co-editors
Joakim: Chris, Florian, Werner, Victor?, Wonsuk: who is working on
the sections 3 and 4?
... is it clear ? Perhaps someone should work on the datatypes, and
someone else on the API
Chris: we haven't divided yet the work as you suggested
... Wonsuk has made this first draft but we haven't discussed it yet
among the editors
... now is the first time we discuss it
... I will comment it from now on
Joakim: my suggestion is to divide the work and not introduce
bottlenecks
Chris: yes, I can live with that
<Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to discuss another question about
datatypes
Pierre Antoine: I'm not quite sure it is safe to split the work
between datatypes and API
scribe: my proposal would be to split between properties which have
structured values as results versus non-structured
... I think this has been mentioned on the list
... but I haven't read yet the follow-up of this dicussion or any
decision
<florian> +1
scribe: I would vote for this way of splitting
Raphael: +1 for PA proposal
Chris: We haven't formally defined which properties should have a
structured or non-structured values
... we have discussed that briefly at the last f2f, but we wanted to
provide examples
... so we can decide which properties will get structured values or
unstructured values
<joakim>
[25]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/ontology10/WD
/summary.html
[25]
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/ontology10/WD/summary.html
Chris: as far as I know, it is undecided yet for the properties
<pchampin> I think it is a pre-requisite to working on the actual
API
<scribe> ACTION: chris and co-editors (wonsuk, florian, victor,
werner) to come up for a proposal for a return type for all
properties, i.e. structured or unstructured? [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-mediaann-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-155 - And co-editors (wonsuk, florian,
victor, werner) to come up for a proposal for a return type for all
properties, i.e. structured or unstructured? [on Chris Poppe - due
2009-09-22].
<joakim>
[27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009
Aug/att-0007/magw-idl.pdf
[27]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Aug/att-0007/magw-idl.pdf
Joakim: in your email Florian, you reference a proposal from Victor
Florian: this is an IDL example yes
Raphael: can we transform this same example into WebIDL?
Florian: I think we haven't yet discussed enough Victor's proposal?
... how could we continue to discuss it?
<pchampin> from the WebIDL draft: "An interface is a specification
of a set of interface members"
<pchampin> so it seems that WebIDL has interfaces as well
<pchampin> +1 for 1 method per property
Raphael: +1 too
Joakim: our idea is to indeed use WebIDL now
... How can we really be sure that the API will work?
Florian: should we build a reference implementation
... that complements the abstract API documentation
<pchampin> I think Joakim rather means "test cases"
Florian: in the same spirit that the MPEG one
Joakim: who should provide reference implementation
Raphael: there is no rules for that
<pchampin> if the reference implementations have to pass the same
test-cases, does this mean that they have to be in the same
language?
yes pchampin
Thierry: as raphael said, all W3C spec should go through
implementations that pass test cases testing all features of the
spec
Raphael: I suggest you look at the test cases developed by the Media
Fragments WG as an example
<pchampin> I plan to update my toy implementation as well
Raphael: Media Fragments WG test cases:
[28]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/TestCases
[28] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/TestCases
<pchampin> but it's in python, which I don't think will be the final
language
<pchampin> hence my question...
pchampin, the language used for the implementation does not matter
the test cases should specify, if you encounter feature a, what
should you do, and how can you test it does the right thing
Wonsuk: if we use WebIDL for the API draft, do we have enough time
given that we have not really experts from this group
... it is just my concern
Joakim: i will forward the question to the editors, Chris, do you
think it is doable?
Chris: I think it is, since WebIDL is anyway very close to IDL
... I'm not (yet) a WebIDL expert
Raphael: I will remind that Doug Shelpers said that folks from his
group would be happy to help us if we are stuck
Joakim: next meeting, we can discuss which datatypes to use for each
properties
Pierre Antoine: I voted for one method per property, I think it is
easier to work with
scribe: maybe for some properties, we will give the choice to the
developer to use a simple or a structured value
... and in this case, we might provide 2 methods OR a parameter
Joakim: thanks for your thoughts
4. AOB
[silence]
Joakim: meeting, next Tuesday
<pchampin> bye
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: chris and co-editors (wonsuk, florian, victor, werner)
to come up for a proposal for a return type for all properties, i.e.
structured or unstructured? [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-mediaann-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
--
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 Tuesday, 15 September 2009 13:02:29 UTC