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

Dear all,

The revised version of the RDF hopefully implementing the changes agreed today.

Regards,

Jean-Pierre



From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joakim Söderberg
Sent: lundi, 20. décembre 2010 16:54
To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: [AGENDA] Media Annotations WG Teleconf - 2010-12-21

Hello,
On request from Florian et al. I have added an item to the agenda tomorrow.

Remember, tomorrow is the last call for 2010, please be there!


-------------------------------
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] Future plans for the working group
Proposal from Florian to have a rechartering Workshop collocated with the i-Know/i-Semantics


Best Regards
/Joakim




-----------------------------------------
**************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it 
are confidential and intended solely for the 
use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. 
If you have received this email in error, 
please notify the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email 
message has been swept by the mailgateway
**************************************************