W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > December 2010

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

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 13:03:22 +0100
To: 'Joakim Söderberg' <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010D37C7CF3D@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
Where are the call details??

From: Joakim Söderberg [mailto:joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com]
Sent: mardi, 7. décembre 2010 12:10
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: RE: [AGENDA] Media Annotations WG Teleconf - 2010-12-07

These "adjustments" seems more like additions to me. We could add them for Ontology 2.0! We have a list for improvements on our Wiki: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/Improvements_/_Enhancement_for_a_revision_of_the_%22Ontology_for_Media_Resource_1.0%22_document


From: Evain, Jean-Pierre [mailto:evain@ebu.ch]
Sent: den 6 december 2010 15:51
To: Joakim Söderberg; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: RE: [AGENDA] Media Annotations WG Teleconf - 2010-12-07

                                                                        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,


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).


1. Convene
Media Annotations WG
Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, conference 6294 ("MAWG") Alternative dial numbers:
France (Nice): +
UK (Bristol) : +44.117.370.6152
IRC channel: #mediaann
Tuesday 2010-12-07 12:00-13:00 UTC, (ie, Amsterdam, Paris, Stockholm 13:00)
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:

[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:
-          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

-- 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:

[D] reminder : Metadata examples needed!

During the F2F in Lyon, we decided to verify our mapping ontology by having metadata in each format AOB

Best Regards
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2010 12:04:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:45 UTC