RE: MAWG LC2405 and answers

Action 2405 - JPEvain   http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html

Introduction

-          Separate the section on DublinCore - Done (the presence of the dc:creator in the previous paragraph is a bit confusing to this respect...)

-          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 4.2.1 - Done -> 5.2.1

Section 4.2.2 - no change as explained in previous response - tables in line -> now 5.2.2


Other comments from my review

The abstract and introduction should mention the definition of the RDF ontology and the mapping table that will come with it.

Regards, JP

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre
Sent: mercredi, 17. novembre 2010 20:54
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
Subject: MAWG LC2405 and answers

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<mailto:public-media-annotation@w3.org> if you agree with it or not*
before deadline date [@@-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 enquiries for feedback.
Your solution is an elegant way to deal with them, and we will update the Status section ccordingly.

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.