Re: [AGENDA] Media Annotations WG Teleconf - 2010-12-21

Dear all,

as announced earlier, I cannot partcipate in the telecon on the 21st.

Best regards,

Tobias

2010/12/11 Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>

>  Dear all,
>
> Decision by majority vote suggests that the next teleconference will be on
> December 21st
>
>
>
> As already announced, we will focus on the proposed updates to the abstract
> ontology, and resolve open action items in order to publish the ontology doc
> on a second last call. 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).
>
>
>
> Best 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 2010-12-21 12:00-13:00 UTC, (ie, Amsterdam, Paris, Stockholm 13:00)
>
> Regrets: Tobias
>
> Chair: Joakim
>
> Scribe: TBA
>
>
>
> Minutes to appear: *http://www.w3.org/2010/12/21-mediaann-minutes.html*
>
> Propose to accept F2F minutes: *
> http://www.w3.org/2010/11/30-mediaann-minutes.html*
>
>
>
> 2. Next meeting
>
> TBA (2011)
>
>
>
> 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:
>
>
>
> PART I
>
> 1) It is proposed to add track as a sub-class of fragment to help aligning
> with MFWG
>
> 2) 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
>
> 3) It is proposed to add captioningTrack to better align with MFWG and also
> to address subtitling more properly
>
>
>
> 4) 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?
>
>
>
> 5) RatingValue should be float but it should now have been corrected in the
> API following today review of actions.
>
>
>
> 6) language and compression should allow string but also anyURI values,
> which would allow using SKOS concepts from classification schemes
>
>
>
> PART II
>
>
>
> 1) We are not providing any information about signing, which is definitely
> important for accessibility
>
> 2) We are not providing very detailed information on captioning
>
> 3) 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
>
>
>
> [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
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
___________________________________
Dr. Tobias Bürger
http://www.tobiasbuerger.com