Re: Updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting

2010/2/26 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>

>  Dear Werner.
>
> Thanks for your good comments J
>
>
>
> I added inline comments as below.
>
>
>
> *From:* Bailer, Werner [mailto:werner.bailer@joanneum.at]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2010 11:25 PM
> *To:* 이원석
> *Cc:* public-media-annotation@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: Updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting
>
>
>
> Dear Wonsuk, all,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the new draft, I think it is a major improvement.
>
>
>
> However, I have a few comments:
>
>
>
> - in the abstract it says we define “semantics-preserving”: the
> introduction states correctly that this cannot always be achieved – so it
> should be removed from the abstract
>
> à how about “syntactic and semantic level mappings” instead of “semantics-preserving
> mappings” ?
>
>
>
> - section 3.1: shouldn’t we list for completeness also string, float and
> integer and refer to definitions we are using
>
> à Agreed
>
>
>
> - section 3.2: we are currently not using any complex type definitions in
> the table, esp. not the person example given
>
> à I would like to remove this part.
>
>
>
> - the editorial note in 4.1.2 should reference annex A
>
> à Agreed
>
>
>
> - ma:location: I’m not an expert in this, but afaik there are different
> coordinate systems for geolocation, so we should add a string for the
> coordinate system to the log/lat/alt triple
>
> à I am not sure at this moment, but I added geoLocation:String to Data
> type column of ma:location row. Is it right?
>


Maybe we should ask the geolocation API WG what is suitable here, see e.g.
http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html#position_interface or
http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html#coordinates_iterface

Best,

Felix




>
>
> - 4.2.1.1 ma:right should be ma:copyright
>
> à Agreed.
>
>
>
> - Annex A: I think discovery of tracks can be dropped, this is resolved by
> the redefinition of ma:fragment
>
> à Agreed. Could you propose the draft of redefinition ? It would be great
> J
>
>
>
> - Annex A: I think including the references we have in the Wiki for each of
> the issues could be useful
>
> à Agreed.
>
>
>
>
>
> - Annex C: I’ve asked that before: are really all references normative?
> E.g. MPEG-21 that we consider not in scope
>
> à Agreed.
>
>
>
> - typo: “vocbulary” in the introduction
>
> - typo: cunjuntion -> conjunction in 3.2
>
> à Agreed.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wonsuk
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Werner
>
>
>
> *From:* public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:
> public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *???
> *Sent:* Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2010 09:36
> *To:* public-media-annotation@w3.org
> *Subject:* Updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting
>
>
>
> below is the updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting.
>
> Please review and if you have any comment, let me know.
>
>
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html
>
>
>
> best regards,
>
> Wonsuk.
>
>
>