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

Re: Response to your LC Comment -2405 on Media Ontology spec

From: Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 15:00:56 +0900
Message-ID: <AANLkTin=OPb9+zj74D_Q=hdm48ZHQMCo182CrEwQCaJo@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Cc: tmichel@w3.org, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Doug,

I am now cleaning up the comments resolutions, and I'd like to close out
your comment with your satisfaction if you are strong object.

Surely, the revision docs will be ready and available in your hand after
TPAC.

Thanks,

Daniel



On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi, Media Annotations WG-
>
> In general, I'm satisfied by these response to my comments, but I would
> need to see them in the spec before I can confirm that.  In particular, I'm
> confused by your solution around the "ma" prefix, and would like to see it
> in writing.  Is there a revised editor's draft available?
>
> Regards-
> -Doug
>
> Thierry MICHEL wrote (on 9/29/10 2:56 AM):
>
>  Dear Doug,
>>
>> The Media Annotations Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent
>> [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Ontology 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 (your
>> points are copied and our responses start with an arrow ->).
>> 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
>> opportunity 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,
>> Véronique Malaisé
>>
>> 1.
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Jul/0016.html
>>
>> 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/
>>
>> -----------------
>> MAWG Resolution:
>> -----------------
>>
>> Ontology:
>>
>> As an editorial comment, there seems to be an academic tone here, with
>> the use of the word "our" rather than "this specification", detailed
>> rationales for decisions (which is good in itself, but ), and a
>> generally tentativeness ("Although the set of properties is now limited,
>> it already constitutes a proof of concept", section 4.1.1, "proof-read
>> our interpretation", etc.). I recommend you simply state in the Status
>> section that feedback is welcome (with short inline notes commenting on
>> which sections are in particular need of feedback), that there may be
>> considerations for possible future versions of the spec, and that you
>> leave room for extensions; if this is done right and sees uptake, it
>> will almost certainly be the first of a lineage of specs.
>>
>> -> The Ontology document will be updated in order to remove fuzzy
>> statements or inquiries for feedback. Your solution is an elegant way to
>> deal with them, and we will update the Status section accordingly.
>>
>> 1 Introduction
>> The introduction could benefit by trimming it down. Split the
>> relationship to Dublin Core into a subsection. Explain the uses of this
>> ontology to the expected readers of the spec: possible implementers,
>> content authors, and users of the ontology.
>>
>> -> Indeed, we will rewrite the Introduction section, split the mention
>> of Dublin Core from the rest and be more precise regarding the goal of
>> the Ontology.
>>
>> 1.1 Purpose of this specification
>> After reading this, I'm left wondering whether this ontology is expected
>> to be used in metadata itself, or if it is only a mapping. If someone
>> were to use this ontology by itself, would that be a misuse? Explain why
>> or why not in this section.
>>
>> -> We agreed at the last F2F that the Ontology can be used as a metadata
>> scheme in itself, so we will update the Ontology document accordingly. A
>> paragraph will be added that specifies the purpose of the specification
>> and its scope: the property list, its RDF implementation and the set of
>> mappings.
>>
>> 4.1.2 Core properties
>> All the property names are prefixed with "ma:", which could be confused
>> as part of the property name. Simply stating that the properties are in
>> the Media Annotations namespace is enough (as long as you provide
>> concrete examples of use).
>>
>> -> We decided on keeping the ma: prefix when describing the property
>> names, but we are rewriting the syntax in which we present their ranges:
>> it does not include semicolons anymore. In this way we hope that the
>> syntax will be more clear. We are also adding concrete examples of
>> properties' values in the table.
>>
>> 4.2.1 Rationale regarding the mapping table "Its namespace is "ma", for
>> Media Annotation." The spec seems to conflate the namespace with the
>> prefix; usually, a namespace is something like
>> "http://w3.org/MediaAnnotations/", which is often bound in a serialized
>> document with a common prefix, like "ma:" using a namespace declaration;
>> the prefix is not considered universal. (In my opinion, this is a flawed
>> design for Namespaces in XML, but that's the convention.)
>>
>> -> We corrected the sloppyness of calling the ma prefix a namespace at
>> another place in the document, and will have to correct this in the last
>> place where the confusion unfortunately still figures in the document.
>>
>> 4.2.2 The mapping table
>> I really like the level of detail this spec goes into for performing the
>> mapping (though I guess it's still a work in progress. The mappings seem
>> a bit hidden, though, and they are really the meat of the spec. I assume
>> you are trying to keep the spec manageably short, but I would suggest
>> either keeping the tables inline in the body of the single-page spec, or
>> splitting it out into chapters with each chapter a short description of
>> the mapped ontology, followed by the table mapping itself.
>>
>> -> We considered the idea of splitting the table into sections, but it
>> turned out to be quite a complicated operation. Having the table as a
>> whole also shows a nice overview. We are now importing it in the main
>> document, so following the first option that you suggest: keeping it
>> inline with the body of the document.
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Soohong Daniel Park
Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D
http://www.soohongp.com, twitter:@natpt
Received on Monday, 1 November 2010 06:01:26 UTC

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