RE: [AGENDA] Media Annotations WG Teleconf - 2010-12-07

Dear all,

   I'm so sorry but I won't be able to attend the teleconference tomorrow.

Best Regards,

     Mari Carmen.

"Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch> escribió:

> Dear all,
>
> Looking at the multi-track audio discussion of the HTML WG, I would  
> suggest a couple of additional point for adjustment of the ontology,  
> both formal and RDF:
>
>
> -          We are not providing any information about signing, which  
> is definitely important for accessibility
>
> -          We are not providing very detailed information on captioning
>
> -          I would therefore propose for discussion tomorrow the  
> addition of signing and a number of properties such as the 'purpose'  
> (is signing or captioning there for translation, subtitling, audio  
> description, etc.), the language used (valid for signing as well as  
> captioning) and maybe an attribute like closed vs. open signing or  
> captioning
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jean-Pierre
>
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org  
> [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joakim  
> Söderberg
> Sent: dimanche, 5. décembre 2010 11:16
> To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: [AGENDA] Media Annotations WG Teleconf - 2010-12-07
>
> Hello everyone,
> Here is the agenda for next telecon. We will focus on the proposed  
> updates to the abstract ontology.
>
> Please have a look at your (new and old) open actions. For example  
> we are missing LC comment reviews from Daniel (a-334,343), Wonsuk  
> (a-328) and Jean-Pierre (a-348).
>
> Regards
> /Joakim
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 1. Convene
> Media Annotations WG
> Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, conference 6294 ("MAWG") Alternative  
> dial numbers:
> France (Nice): +33.4.26.46.79.03
> UK (Bristol) : +44.117.370.6152
> IRC channel: #mediaann
> Tuesday 2010-12-07 12:00-13:00 UTC, (ie, Amsterdam, Paris, Stockholm 13:00)
> Regrets:
> Chair: Joakim
> Scribe: TBA
>
> Minutes to appear: http://www.w3.org/2010/12/07-mediaann-minutes.html
> Propose to accept F2F minutes:  
> http://www.w3.org/2010/11/30-mediaann-minutes.html
>
> 2. Next meeting
> Tuesday 2010-12-14
>
> 3. Items
> [A] Action items:
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/open
>
> [B] Discuss the set of changes to the (abstract) Ontology,  
> summarized here by Jean-Pierre:
>
> - It is proposed to add track as a sub-class of fragment to help  
> aligning with MFWG
> - It is proposed to add videoTrack and audioTrack to which currently  
> existing specialised properties like frameRate or sampleRate will be  
> more specifically linked as well as a better use of the compression  
> property
> - It is proposed to add captioningTrack to better align with MFWG  
> and also to address subtitling more properly
>
> - It is proposed to change createDate (or creationDate) as "date"  
> and list createDate (or creationDate) at the same level as  
> releaseDate, etc.  This allows better hierarchical representation of  
> dates in the RDF ontology as, for example, releaseDate cannot be  
> considered as a subclass of createDate?
>
> - RatingValue should be float but it should now have been corrected  
> in the API following today review of actions.
>
> - language and compression should allow string but also anyURI  
> values, which would allow using SKOS concepts from classification  
> schemes
>
> [C] Follow up on Implementation of LC comments
>
> 1- Media Ontology spec
>
> -- LC Comment -2405:  JP Evain:
> Introduction
> -          Note to implementers, content authors - not really  
> explicit, maybe these roles should be mentioned saying things like  
> "it is expected that implementers will do."  ". to the benefit of  
> content providers", etc.
>
> -          There is no section 1.1 on the purpose of the specification (yet)
>
> Section 4.1 core property definitions -> now section 5.1
> -          The ma: prefix still appears in the table but since the  
> comment was made Pierre Antoine, while working on the mapping table  
> suggested that the prefix should only be used with the ma-ont  
> namespace in the RDF -> reconsider position?
>
> Section 4.2.2 - no change as explained in previous response - tables  
> in line -> now 5.2.2
>
> Joakim: "our specification" is replaced by "this specification"  
> (OK), But "our Ontology" (two occurrences in section 1)
>
> Other comments from JP review
>
> The abstract and introduction should mention the definition of the  
> RDF ontology and the mapping table that will come with it.
>
>
> -- LC Comment -2389 : NO - partially implemented  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Nov/0086.html
>
> -- LC Comment -2404 : NO - partially implemented  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Nov/0093.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Nov/0085.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Nov/0094.html
>
>
> -- LC Comment -2418: NO - partially implemented (Edits are missing)  
> see edits at  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Nov/0073.html
>
> ____________
>
> 2- Media API spec
>
> -- LC Comment -2406 : NOT reviewed
>
> -- LC Comment -2419 : NO partially implemented  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Nov/0090.html
>
> -- LC Comment -2410 : OK But Chris must add Véronique's edits see edits at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Nov/0107.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Nov/0106.html
>
>
>
> [D] reminder : Metadata examples needed!
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Nov/0081.html
>
> During the F2F in Lyon, we decided to verify our mapping ontology by  
> having metadata in each format AOB
>
>
> Best Regards
> /Joakim
>
>

Received on Monday, 6 December 2010 18:10:02 UTC