Re: Response to your LC Comment -2411 on Media Ontology spec

Karen,

I am now bashing our comments resolutions, and I'd close your comments with
your satisfaction due to your no reply.

If you are strong objection, please do let me know immediately.

Thanks,

Daniel

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote:

> Dear Karen,
>
> The Media Annotations Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1]
> on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Ontlology for Media Resource 1.0
> published on 08 June 2010.
> Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and to send us
> comments.
>
> The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.
> Please review it carefully and *let us know by email at
> public-media-annotation@w3.org if you agree with it* or not before
> deadline date [09-oct-2010].
> In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific solution
> for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group.
> If such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the pportunity to
> raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during
> the transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation
> Track.
>
> Thanks,
>
> For the Media Annotations Working Group,
> Thierry Michel,
> W3C Team Contact
>
> 1.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Aug/0000.html
> 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/
>
> -----------------
> MAWG Resolution:
> -----------------
>
> Response to the comments, we have copied your comments and added our
> answers to each of them inline ([MA]).
> ----------------------------------------
>
> 1. The scope of the ontology should be clarified as being stored digital
> resources. It should also be made clear whether these resources MUST be
> accessible online, or could be offline.
> [MA] The scope is not restricted to stored digital resources. The resources
> could be offline so there is no restriction on this. This is clarified in
> the definition of Media Resource [0].
>
> 2. You should add PBCORE (http://pbcore.org) to the list. This is a
> metadata set for broadcast media, and I believe it interrelates to the BBC
> metadata.
> Original broadcast date is key for these materials, as is the name of the
> show or series (which can be different from the name of the episode).
> [MA] The mappings tables included in the Ontology specification are
> established from the Media Ontology's core properties to various multimedia
> metadata formats. This list of formats is not closed, nor does it pretend to
> be exhaustive.
> The MA working Group is open to addition of more metadata formats. If there
> are particular metadata formats like Public Broadcasting metadata, you would
> like to see included in this specification, please bring your expertise to
> the working group and we also invite you to join the Media Annotations
> Working Group.
> Additionally, the original broadcast date can be expressed with our
> ontology as a subtype of the createDate property. The type would be
> "broadcast date".
>
> 3. There doesn't seem to be much for describing the content of the media.
> There is only the description field. I suspect that many media
> organizations have a more complex view, and will need for synopsis to be
> separate from subjects for the purposes of display. Also, for broadcast
> programs with multiple segments, they need a say to say, for example:
> 0-1 minute Introductions
> 1-19 minute: Interview with x
> 19-22 minutes: news segment
> 22-31 minute: Interview with y
> I don't remember if these are already in PBCore.
> [MA] The relation property can be used to point to more complex semantic
> annotations. E.g., if semantic annotations consist of triples stored in a
> separate file, then use ma:relation with the relation equal to 'annotation'
> and the URI would be the location of the RDF file.
> For annotations of multiple segments, different fragments of a media
> resource are also considered as media resources. Hence, it is possible to
> provide descriptions, keywords, or relation properties for a temporal
> fragment of the media resource.
>
> 3. You will probably eventually need to include some preservation metadata.
> This is especially important for any digital media that have been derived
> from physical media. PREMIS is probably overkill.... but you may be able to
> pick a few elements from that.
> [MA]This is out of our scope. The relation property could be used to link
> with preservation metadata if needed.
>
> [0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/#media-resource
>
>


-- 
Soohong Daniel Park
Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D
http://www.soohongp.com, twitter:@natpt