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

Re: Response to your LC Comment -2418 on Media Ontology spec

From: Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 14:53:45 +0900
Message-ID: <AANLkTinSqnpiKzFz77Np8heK3Sk4uvgskadkGOZa7BJU@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: tmichel@w3.org, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Robin,

I am now cleaning up our comments resolutions.
I've closed your comment out with your satisfaction.

Thanks,

Daniel

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> Dear MAWG,
>
> On Sep 29, 2010, at 09:01 , Thierry MICHEL wrote:
> > The Working Group's response to your comment is included below (your
> points are copied and our responses start with an arrow ->).
>
> No they don't ;-)
>
> > We agreed with your editorial comments and will implement them in the
> coming weeks.
>
> I'm satisfied with this resolution.
>
> > About your substantial comment regarding the sentence: "The Working Group
> MAY potentially modify these definitions, to ensure compatibility with the
> return data types defined in API for Media Resources 1.0 s well as the data
> types defined in the HTML5 W3C Working Draft.", we will modify the sentence
> to make clear that we indeed provide a stable version of the properties'
> definition, including their values.
>
> I'm satisfied with this resolution.
>
> > About "Applications that are compliant with this specification SHOULD use
> this namespace.", SHOULD will be replaced by MUST in the next version of the
> document.
>
> I'm satisfied with this resolution.
>
> > About "A controlled vocabulary such as [BCP 47] SHOULD be used.", SHOULD
> will be replaced by RECOMMENDED in the next version of the document: we
> recommend the use of a controlled vocabulary over non-controlled values, but
> it is not a strong compliance requirement for using the Media Ontology.
>
> According to RFC 2119 SHOULD and RECOMMENDED are equivalent, so this is
> essentially a non-change. Specifically, they "mean that there may exist
> valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but
> the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before
> choosing a different course." I can see how using a SHOULD/RECOMMEND here
> may make sense, but you SHOULD (heh!) provide implementers with some
> information as to why a controlled vocabulary is better  that was they can
> "understand the implications". But I won't formally object over that.
>
> > About ""it MAY also define a coordinate system that can be used to
> interpret these measurements" Is there a controlled vocabulary for these? ",
> we will give an example of a geocoordinate that can be used in this case and
> rephrase the sentence to avoid the confusion about "interpreting the
> measurements" in the next version of the document.
>
> I'm satisfied with this resolution.
>
> > About "ma:format include media type parameters?": yes, it does include
> bucket media types (the new version of the document includes this
> specification).
>
> I will be satisfied with this resolution if it includes a grammar, a
> pointer to a grammar, or any other clear way of parsing the value.
>
> > About the "XPath heterogeneity problem": it is being harmonized and will
> be consistent in the new version of the document.
>
> For this I would kindly ask that the WG send me a pointer to the harmonised
> version once it is ready so that I may review it.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Soohong Daniel Park
Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D
http://www.soohongp.com, twitter:@natpt
Received on Monday, 1 November 2010 05:54:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:44 UTC