RE: review the 6 LC comments pending

Dear all,

My comments on the answers to the LC comments :) 
My main concern is what is the goal of these answers? Is it to state what
has changed or what will (potentially) be changed. As you will see in my
comments below, most of the answers are not reflected yet in the documents.


Ontology
2389:  change "are a possible." to "are possible.".
2393:  Section "1.2.2 Multimedia container formats in scope" and section
"5.2.3 Multimedia container formats mapping tables" in the ontology document
are not complete (missing examples and mappings respectively).  It does not
seem a good idea to me to have empty mapping tables in the document.
2398: ok
2403: I would extend the example in the ontology document, now the title
sais: "How to use the POWDER protocol for publishing descriptions of media
resources". Maybe it's better to say: "How to use the POWDER protocol for
publishing descriptions of multiple media resources.". 
Also, this example depends on the RDF version of our ontology so we should
add a descriptive introduction to the example.
2404: change "ontlogy" to "ontology". I find the answer confusing, will the
RDF appendix be part of this ontology document or not?  BTW, the RDF-version
has no identifiers for the different classes and properties!
2405: I guess the answer should say: "we changed this" and not "we will
change this".
 Also it sais: "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.". Where is this paragraph?
The changes to the mapping table are not done.
It sais: "and will have to correct this in the last place where the
confusion unfortunately still figures in the document.". Where is this in
the document?
2411: The example of broadcast date still has to be added.
2417: The answer is done, but the changes have not been done yet.
2418 :  The answer sais: " We agreed with your editorial comments and will
implement them in the coming weeks."  Now I am confused about the goal of
the answers to the LC comments (in general), is it to state what we will
change or is it to state that we did change something according to the
request?
The XPATH expressions still need to be changed.

API:
2394: This answer has a "TODO" in it.
2395: The statement about exceptions has not been added yet.
2406: ok.
2410: ok.
2419: This answer has "TODO's" in it.



Kind regards,
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Thierry MICHEL
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:03 PM
To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: review the 6 LC comments pending

All MAWG participants,


We have currently 6 LC comments for which we have a drafted "Proposed 
Resolution" [status="pending"]

Please review these 6 comment responses and send feedback to the MAWG 
mailing if needed.
If there are no issue raised by the next telecon meeting next tuesday on 
these responses to comments, we will consider those as *resolved by the 
MAWG* [status="resolved-yes"]

LC Comments to review:

1-List of comments on "Ontology for Media Resource 1.0:

http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42786/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/
2389:
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42786/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/
2393:
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42786/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/
2417:
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42786/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/
2404:

2-List of comments on "Ontology for API Resource 1.0:

http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42786/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-2010
0608/2395
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42786/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-2010
0608/2410?cid=2410

Best,

Thierry.

Received on Monday, 27 September 2010 10:05:30 UTC