RE: ACTION-407 (was: API-DOC: Integrated resolutions & new issue)

Dear all,

As discussed in the telco on Apr. 5, we plan to adopt a solution similar to option b) proposed by Pierre-Antoine (see mail below). 

However, as there are already definitions about optionality of attributes in the table in section 5.1.2 of the ontology document, we think that these should be completed/updated, and the API document should refer to the ontology document.

In general, the optionality of attributes looks ok, except for these properties, for which we propose changes:
- location: all attributes are optional, this should be changed to require (name) or (longitude,latitude,altitude)
- targetAudience: classificationSystem might not be available in the source format, thus it should be optional (similar to rating.ratingSystem)

In the API document, we should state: Attributes defined as URI|String are modelled as two attributes (link, label). If the corresponding attribute is required, a value must be returned for either the link or label attribute.

In addition to the attributes specified in the ontology document, the MediaAnnotation interface defines additional generic attributes. Currently MUST and SHOULD in the description of the attributes are used to express optionality. However, the description is not clear for two of them: mappingType and sourceFormat. As these are known to the API (otherwise the mapping from the source format would not be possible), we suggest to also make the required.

As no telco is scheduled for next week, please send your comments to the list.

Best regards,
Werner

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
> annotation-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Pierre-Antoine Champin
> Gesendet: Samstag, 02. April 2011 11:53
> An: Florian Stegmaier
> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Betreff: Re: API-DOC: Integrated resolutions & new issue
> 
> Hi Florian, all,
> 
> My first reaction would be to vote for b), although I have to check it
> with the actual list of attributs (I'm writing this mail while
> offline).
> 
> It seems to me that it would make no much sense to return a location
> with no geographical coordinates, or a ranking with no value...
> 
> On the other hand, IIRC there are some attributes in the common
> interface that could be considered optional.
> 
>   pa
> 
> On 03/30/2011 06:45 PM, Florian Stegmaier wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Werner and i have integrated the resolutions decided in last weeks
> teleconf [1]. Here you can find the revised version of the API:
> >
> > http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-api-1.0/mediaont-api-

> 1.0.html
> >
> > We encountered another important issue: We have a general
> MediaAnnotations interface with attributes valid for all properties and
> sub-interfaces covering specific attributes for a property (e.g.,
> longitude for location). The main question is, what attributes we
> declare as required. These options would be possible:
> >
> > a) An API MUST fill all attributes defined in the MediaAnnotation
> interface and MAY (optionally) fill specific attributes defined in the
> corresponding sub interface.
> > b) An API MUST fill a specific subset of attributes of the
> MediaAnnotation interface and MUST fill a specific subset of the sub-
> interface attributes.
> >
> > Nevertheless at the moment we only declare these things in a note
> (following version a) in section 4.4.2.
> >
> > Best,
> > Florian
> >
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-

> annotation/2011Mar/0100.html
> > _____________________________
> > Dipl. Inf. Florian Stegmaier
> > Chair of Distributed Information Systems
> > University of Passau
> > Innstr. 43
> > 94032 Passau
> >
> > Room 248 ITZ
> >
> > Tel.: +49 851 509 3063
> > Fax: +49 851 509 3062
> >
> > stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de
> > https://www.dimis.fim.uni-passau.de/iris/

> > http://twitter.com/fstegmai

> > _____________________________
> >
> >
>

Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 15:56:59 UTC