AW: Review of PR version of ontology document

Hi Thierry,

many thanks for your updates.

Here are my proposals for the 3 open issues:

>> - section 1.1.1
>> -- dig35, mrss and ogg include values in the examples, others not
> What would you like to have ?

I suggest dropping the values, and only have the property name in the example column.

>> - section 1.1.2
>> -- ogg and webm include values in the examples, others not
> What would you like to have ?

I suggest dropping the values, and only have the property name in the example column.

>> - section 5.1.2
>> -- copyright: the sentence "Other issues related to DRM ..." seems outdated and should be changed, as policy allows referencing licenses
> What would you like to have ?

I propose changing the sentence to "Issues related to Digital Rights Management are out of scope for this specification, apart from the metadata supported by the copyright and policy attributes."

We should add the same sentence also at the end of the description of policy.

Best regards,
Werner

________________________________________
Von: Thierry MICHEL [tmichel@w3.org]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. Dezember 2011 10:46
An: Bailer, Werner
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Betreff: Re: Review of PR version of ontology document

Werner,

I have updated the Ontology REC version with your suggestions only a few
issues remain (marked with @@ (see inline).

http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/ontology10/REC/


Best,

thierry


Le 22/12/2011 19:33, Bailer, Werner a écrit :
> Dear all,
>
> Martin and I have reviewed the PR version of the document in the last weeks. Here are comments on two topics: editorial issues in the document and issues with the testsuite (summarised below, but Martin has already posted them to the list).
>
> 1. Editorial comments about the ontology document
>
> - Veronique's affiliation in the editor list: VU is listed in the acknowledgements and in the W3C member listing as "Vrije Universiteit"
OK: editor list updated to "Vrije Universiteit"

> - section 1 introduction
> -- first par: "non available" ->  "not available"
OK changed to "not available"

> -- second par: "will introduce a certain loss in semantic", propose to replace "will" by "may"
OK changed to "may"

> -- 2nd and 3rd bullet point on Dublin Core: remove "the" before "Dublin Core"
OK removed

> - references to formats are inhomogeneous, sometimes uses square brackets, sometimes not, e.g. "EXIF" vs. "[FRBR]" in section 1

OK now  homogeneous

> - section 1.1
> -- 3rd par: "they widespread use" ->  "their ...", also their seems to refer to tech properties, but could also read as referring to container formats, this should be clarified
OK changed to "their ..."

> - section 1.1.1
> -- dig35, mrss and ogg include values in the examples, others not
@@ What would you like to have ?

> - section 1.1.2
> -- ogg and webm include values in the examples, others not

@@ What would you like to have ?

> -- missing example for flv
OK: I have added "xmp:CreateDate"

> - section 3 / Property
> -- Dublin Core should be a link to the reference
OK: Done

> - section 4
> -- the first sentence of the note "Currently, ..." should be dropped
OK sentence removed.

> -- the second sentence of the note should be part of the text rather than a note
OK remove the note presentation , now as normal paragraph.

> - section 5.1.2
> -- copyright: the sentence "Other issues related to DRM ..." seems outdated and should be changed, as policy allows referencing licenses
@@ What would you like to have ?


> -- frameSize: "units MUST be interpreted as pixels" should probably say "values ..."
OK : changed to "then the values MUST be interpreted as pixels."

> -- compression: put mmyyyy under quotes or in italics
OK : edited in italics.

> -- format: insert "/container types" after "bucket media types"
OK : changed to (e.g., wrapper or bucket media types, container types)

> - section 5.2.1.1
> -- definition of more specific/generic: specific is defined as "contain a superset of the semantics", generic as "semantics that is broader" --
> this is in fact the same.

OK : changed to "contain a subset of the semantics"



In accordance with the examples
> -- generic vs. general: the definition uses the term "more generic", while the mapping tables use "more general";
 >this should be harmonised (more general seems to be better, as it
corresponds to the term used by SKOS)

OK : replaced "More generic" by "More general" (and also in the
introduction paragraph)




> - section 5.2.2
> -- column "spec": the column is not present in any of the tables (sometimes there is an untitled columns such as in CableLabs)
OK : removed the  sentence about column "spec"

> -- "into an updated of this" ->  "into an updated version of this"
OK changed to "into an updated version of this specification."


> - MPEG-7 mapping table:
> -- date: change the mapping type to "more specific"
OK for the MPEG-7 date, changed "exact" to "more specific"

> -- policy: add to both the MPEG-7 and XPath columns "or UsageInformation/Rights", change the mapping type to "more general"

OK for the MPEG-7 policy,
- changed "exact" to "more specific"
- changed "UsageInformation/Availability/Rights " "or
UsageInformation/Rights"


> - SMPTE DMS-1 mapping table:
> -- date: change the mapping type to "more specific"

OK for the SMPTE DMS-1 date
- changed "exact" to "more specific"

> - section 6.1
> -- heading starts with "Example 1", in contrast to the headings of other examples
OK , removed "Example 1" wording

> -- section 6.2
> -- "not a use case that has been considered": "originally" should be inserted, as this section actually considers the use case

  OK: changed to "a use case that has been originally considered"

> - section 6.4
> -- first par: "gerenal" ->  "general"
OK changed to "general"

> -- there is<tt></tt>  markup throughout the section, which probably should be formating rather than being verbatim code



> - annex B references
> -- the CR of the Media Fragment Spec should be referenced, and it should not say "W3C Recommendation" as it does now

OK updated with courier font style.

[MediaFragment]
R. Troncy, E. Mannens, Silvia Pfeiffer, Davy Van Deursen Eds Media
Fragments URI 1.0. W3C Candidate Recommendation 1 December 2011.
Available for download at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/CR-media-frags-20111201/. The latest version
of the Media fragments specification is available for download at
http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags.
>
> 2. Issues in the test suite
>
> There are a few issues with the test suite files (e.g. RDF/XML was updated, but Turtle version of the same file is outdated or missing). Martin has reported these issues in the following mails to the group:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Dec/0032.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Dec/0008.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Dec/0007.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Dec/0006.html
>
> For many of these issues, fixed version of the mentioned files have already been posted to the list.


I have published the fixed version of the mentioned files. Please check.


Best,

thierry
>
> Best regards,
> Martin and Werner
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Werner Bailer
>    Audiovisual Media Group
>
>    DIGITAL - Institute of Information and Communication Technologies
>
>    JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
>    Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
>
>    phone:  +43-316-876-1218            personal fax: +43-316-876-91218
>    mobile: +43-699-1876-1218            general fax: +43-316-876-1191
>    web:    http://www.joanneum.at/digital
>    e-mail: mailto:werner.bailer@joanneum.at
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Received on Thursday, 29 December 2011 16:07:19 UTC