RE: Editors with Action Items

Hi. Joakim.
I have reflected your proposal to the ontology doc.
Please check the revised ontology doc[1]~

[1] http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html


Best regards,
Wonsuk.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joakim Söderberg [mailto:joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 2:48 AM
> To: tmichel@w3.org; Daniel Park; Chris.Poppe@UGent.be; 이원석; public-
> media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Editors with Action Items
> 
> Hi Thierry, all
> 
> Regarding my Action Items:
> 
> 1) LC Comment -2405: "Abstract and introduction should mention the
> definition of the RDF ontology"
> 
> I have gotten help from Tobias. Can you please add the following to the
> current version?
> 
> 
> * For the Abstract, after this sentence: "this document defines a core set
> of metadata properties for media resources, along with their mappings to
> elements from a set of existing metadata formats."
> 
> Besides that, the document presents a Semantic Web compatible
> implementation of the abstract ontology using RDF/OWL.
> 
> * For the Introduction, after this sentence: "The ontology is accompanied
> by an API (see API for Media Resources 1.0) that provides a uniform access
> to all of its elements."
> 
> Furthermore a Semantic Web compatible implementation of the ontology is
> available which is presented in Section 7 of this document. This
> implementation uses the Semantic Web ontology languages RDF/OWL and its
> derivation from the core vocabulary is presented in detail with it.
> 
> * For the Introduction for the ontology spec (beginning):
> 
> This section presents an implementation of the Ontology for Media Resource
> as a Semantic Web ontology. At first a namespace for the ontology is
> defined (Section 7.1). Secondly, an implementation guideline is given
> which details how the core vocabulary defined in this specification
> relates to the RDF vocabulary (Section 7.2). Finally Section 7.3 presents
> an RDF vocabulary which implements the abstract ontology using RDF and OWL.
> The ontology is a valid OWL2 DL ontology and it can be directly used to
> describe media resource on the Web in a Semantic Web and Linked Data
> compatible way.
> The ontology has been built using standard ontology engineering
> methodologies in a small expert group inside the MAWG working group.
> 
> 
> 2)  LC Comment -2418: No action needed!
> It is stated for each section whether it's normative or not, I don't
> better way of saying it!
> 
> 
> Regards
> /Joakim
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thierry MICHEL [mailto:tmichel@w3.org]
> Sent: den 19 januari 2011 08:59
> To: Joakim Söderberg; Daniel Park; Chris.Poppe@UGent.be; ???; public-
> media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: Editors with Action Items
> 
> Hi joakim, Daniel, Chris,  Wonsuk,
> 
> Here are some remaining ACTIONS for you in order to have the Ontology to
> move to CR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WONSUK
> 
> 
> -- LC Comment -2418: NO - partially implemented
> Fininsh the style sheet issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JOAKIM
> 
> -- LC Comment -2405: NO - partially implemented:1.1 Purpose of this
> specification
> (Action to Joakim to add a paragraph)
> make the set of classes and properties the Ontology defines and the
> values. and provide an implementation of the vocabulary in RDF.
> --> Joakim, Is this done ?
> 
> 
> The abstract and introduction should mention the definition of the RDF
> ontology and the mapping table that will come with it.
> --> The abstract and introduction sdoes not mention the definition of
> the RDF ontology
> 
> 
> -- LC Comment -2418: NO - partially implemented (Edits are missing)
> ed19.:
> -----
> In general it would be helpful if you could be clearer about what the
> normative statements apply to. What is it that MUST do this or that? Is
> it an abstract usage of an ontology? A concrete implementation?
> Something else?
> -->ACTION Joakim: Is this now more clear ?
> 
> 
> DANIEL
> -- LC Comment -2418: NO - partially implemented
> 
> * substantial17:
> ----------------
> → the example of a geocoordinateis is *not added*
> Resolutuon was: [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.]
> --> ACTION is for Daniel to write to the Geolocation WG for a suggestion.
> 
> 
> 
> CHRIS
> 
> -- LC Comment -2394 : NO - partially implemented :  text is still at
> beginning of section 3.1.
> ACTION: Chris to implement issue from lc 2394 regarding HTML5 -
> HTMLMediaElement implements MediaResource
> 
>

Received on Monday, 24 January 2011 04:42:53 UTC