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

Response to your LC Comment -2418 on Media Ontology spec

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:01:00 +0200
Message-ID: <4CA2E42C.1090100@w3.org>
To: robin@berjon.com, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Dear Robin,

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 (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.


For the Media Annotations Working Group,
Véronique Malaisé

1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/
2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/

MAWG Resolution:

We agreed with your editorial comments and will implement them in the 
coming weeks.

About your substantial comment regarding the sentence: "The Working 
Group MAY potentially modify these definitions, to ensure compatibility 
with the return data types defined in API for Media Resources 1.0 s well 
as the data types defined in the HTML5 W3C Working Draft.", we will 
modify the sentence to make clear that we indeed provide a stable 
version of the properties' definition, including their values.

About "Applications that are compliant with this specification SHOULD 
use this namespace.", SHOULD will be replaced by MUST in the next 
version of the document.

About "A controlled vocabulary such as [BCP 47] SHOULD be used.", SHOULD 
will be replaced by RECOMMENDED in the next version of the document: we 
recommend the use of a controlled vocabulary over non-controlled values, 
but it is not a strong compliance requirement for using the Media Ontology.

About ""it MAY also define a coordinate system that can be used to 
interpret these measurements" Is there a controlled vocabulary for 
these? ", we will give an example of a geocoordinate that can be used in 
this case and rephrase the sentence to avoid the confusion about 
"interpreting the measurements" in the next version of the document.

About "ma:format include media type parameters?": yes, it does include 
bucket media types (the new version of the document includes this 

About the "XPath heterogeneity problem": it is being harmonized and will 
be consistent in the new version of the document.
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2010 07:01:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:43 UTC