Re: ACTION-408, description of "rating"

Interestingly, I was about to tell you that 3GPP approved adding a distinct 'star rating' annotation to the metadata set (distinct from 'rating agency rating'), along with 'collection name' and 'thumbnail', last week in San Diego.

Do we need to update any tables?

On Apr 18, 2011, at 6:57 , Bailer, Werner wrote:

> Dear Joakim,
> 
>  
> 
> Just a proposal for a small change to your text:
> 
>  
> 
> The rating value (e.g., customer rating, review, audience appreciation), specified by …
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Werner
> 
>  
> 
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joakim Söderberg
> Sent: Sonntag, 17. April 2011 20:24
> To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: ACTION-408, description of "rating"
> 
>  
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I suggest we add something to the description of “rating” in order to distinguish from “targetAudience”:
> 
>  
> 
> Proposal:
> 
>  
> 
> The rating value based on for example user votes or reviews, specified by a tuple defining the rating value, an optional rating person or organization defined as either a URI (recommended best practice) or as plain text, and an optional voting range. The voting range can optionally be used to define the minimum and maximum values that the rating can have.
> 
>  
> 
> Old:
> 
>  
> 
> A tuple defining the rating value, an optional rating person or organization defined as either a URI (recommended best practice) or as plain text, and an optional voting range. The voting range can optionally be used to define the minimum and maximum values that the rating can have.
> 
>  
> 
> Opinions?
> 
>  
> 
> /Joakim
> 
>  
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.