Re: Response to your LC Comment -2406 on Media API spec

Hi, Thierry-

I'm afraid that the core problem with the API still persists, even in 
the latest draft, so I am not satisfied by the response.

The spec defines 32 separate interfaces, each with multiple attributes. 
  I think it is very unlikely that browsers, in particular, would 
implement this specification.

I suggest drastic simplification, with only one or two interfaces, with 
a couple of methods to get back arrays of values, rather than trying to 
strongly type all the possible attributes for each type of metadata. 
The array structure could simply be an associative array, with the name 
of the property as the index for the value, like a JSON structure.  This 
would be much simpler to implement, and even simpler for content 
authors, since they could use a generic function to get and process any 
metadata value, rather than having to make custom code for each type of 
metadata they wanted.

Since any given piece of metadata may have multiple representations with 
different data and in different formats on different dates, I would 
suggest that each return value be an array of arrays... with the 
metadata itself embedded in an array item that describes its format and 
date... or something like that.

This is the suggestion I made before, at TPAC and when I talked to 
several of you individually.  I'm not set on my solution, but I feel 
confident that the API as designed in the spec today is too large and 
too rigid.

Regards-
-Doug


Thierry MICHEL wrote (on 9/29/10 3:10 AM):
> Dear Doug,
>
> The Media Annotations Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent
> [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the API 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 [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,
> Thierry Michel,
> W3C Team Contact
>
> 1.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Jul/0016.html
>
> 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20100608
>
> -----------------------
> Resolution of the MAWG:
> -----------------------
>
> Looking at the document you seem to have revised, according to your URIs
> in you comment message,
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100309/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20100309/
> These documents are not the latest versions of our specifications, and
> not the versions for the Last Call Review.Please refer to "Last Call
> Working Drafts transition announcement of the API and Ontology for Media
> Resource 1.0"
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Jun/0050.html
>
> The Media Annotations Working Group has done a lot of improvements and
> changes since, especially on the mediaont-api-1.0-20100309 version, and
> probably you would find satisfaction in our latest LC documents
> * http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20100608/
> * http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/
>
> We agree that there is always space for improvement, therefore we have
> added a clarification note on the fact that we consider different values
> for the properties according to different source formats, languages,
> subtypes and tracks.
>
> Finally we have send to you an invitation to join a MAWG telcon sometime
> to discuss them further, unfortunately we did not get any response from
> you.
>
>

--

Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 10:50:42 UTC