W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > July 2011

Re: Minutes of the MAWG telecon july 18th 2011 and ACTION for editors.

From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:40:14 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <1f9917085882c8b3f7586da620ef4900.squirrel@webmail.sophia.w3.org>
To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: tmichel@w3.org, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>

> Dear Thierry,
> I am not an editor on this spec, just a willing contributor. I have
> spent many hours preparing files for this WG such that there are files
> for formats that this WG cares about or should care about. The last
> time that I sent files through I was told that the files are fine. Now
> I am told there is more work that I need to do with a link to a
> randomly long list of things that I should take the files through. I
> would prefer to be told exactly what is wrong with my files. Also, I
> believe I have provided sufficient detail the last time around that
> you as a W3C employee can just fix up whatever wrong RDF markup I
> provided if it doesn't validate.
> As for any missing fields: I have in the past explained how in theory
> Ogg and WebM files can contain all these fields, but that existing
> software does not encode all of these fields at this point in time. I
> have added what was possible to the binary files at this point. I can
> make up RDF files that do not relate to the binary files, but that
> will be very unhelpful. As the files are just an example for what is
> possible at this point in time, I do not see a need to write new
> software that will create files with all the fields that you are
> asking for. I believe you will actually end up with the same situation
> for all of the binary formats including FLV and MP4. I have explained
> this in that past - indeed in many discussions and emails that we had
> on this topic - but I just don't seem to be able to make this point
> understood.

It is 100% understood, and we have taken resolution about it, but because
you did not attend the MAWG F2F nor the telcons you may not be aware of
the WG decision.

Please read the CR exit critéria (these have been requested by the W3C
Director, no me !).

Each format listed in the testsuite for Ontology for Media Resources 1.0
has at least one example file covering a subset or all of the properties
of the core vocabulary of the Media Ontology available for each format
(e.g some formats may not have a mapping to all the properties core set;
for example the "MP4" format does not have a property mapping to the
"identifier" property of the core vocabulary of the Media Ontology). For
formats providing an exemple using only a subset of the properties of the
core vocabulary, the missing properties will be highlighted in the
corresponding mapping tables

> Once your "help" is more concrete than sending me a hyperlink to an
> email with 4 further hyperlinks, two semi-understandable meeting
> minutes, a guideline for editing with a request to install 4 pieces of
> software (which in my case for binary files isn't even sufficient),
> and a random call to "just fix your files", feel free to get back to
> me with concrete questions for what you still need for these files.

I have pointed to an older email that you seemed to be unaware of.
Do I need to copy the minutes in my email. Isn't an hyperlink good enough?

We (the MAWG) have reviewed the RDF files during the F2F. We have
concluded that some RDF files are not good, some are missing info, etc.
Therefore we have written guidelines in order to help the editors. Files
must fulfill the guidelines.
If there are pieces that you don't understand in these guidelines, the
MAWG will be happy to clarifying what is unclear. Maybe you could join a
telecon if you have any issues.
I am only coordinating the work here. If you may also ask more details to
our co chairs.



> Best Regards,
> Silvia Pfeiffer.
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote:
>> Sylvia,
>> We had many discussions and emails on this topic.
>> Please refer to the F2F minutes for review of your formats OGG and WebM
>> and
>> also to the guidelines to edit conformant RDF files.
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Jul/0023.html
>> Best,
>> Thierry.
>> Le 22/07/2011 12:35, Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit :
>>> Dear Thierry,
>>> What is missing now in the files? Are you able to fix it without my
>>> help?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Silvia.
>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Thierry MICHEL<tmichel@w3.org>  wrote:
>>>> Colleagues,
>>>> During this telecon there was very poor attendance.
>>>> Only Werner, Mari-Carmen and I were present.
>>>> Unfortunately, we were missing a quorum and only a couple of regrets
>>>> sent.
>>>> We have discussed the RDF files in the Testsuite and the guidelines to
>>>> provide conformant RDF files.
>>>> So far we have 7 formats conformant (RDF files marked in green)
>>>> We are missing the following compliant RDF files and updated HTML
>>>> mapping
>>>> table:
>>>> Joakim:
>>>> - Cablelabs
>>>> Wonsuk
>>>> -MRSS
>>>> -TXF
>>>> -You tube
>>>> Sylvia
>>>> -OGG
>>>> -WebM
>>>> Courtney/Mari Carment
>>>> - 3GPP
>>>> - Quicktime
>>>> -
>>>> Felix
>>>> - Flash
>>>> - XMP
>>>> Tobias
>>>> - EXIF
>>>> - LOM
>>>> Pierre Antoine
>>>> -ID3
>>>> Chris:
>>>> - Dig35
>>>> Next week the telecon (July 25th) will be canceled.
>>>> ACTION: editors please work on these files. We are about to be done
>>>> now
>>>> to
>>>> move to REC, once we have fulfilled these files.
>>>> Deadline is Aug 4th.
>>>> Best,
>>>> Thierry

Thierry Michel
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 15:40:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:48 UTC