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

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

From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:29:56 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <b812492d580eee44223bc8103b13258d.squirrel@webmail.sophia.w3.org>
To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: "Thierry Michel" <tmichel@w3.org>, joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com, soohongp@gmail.com, "Felix Sasaki" <felix.sasaki@dfki.de>, "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>

see my responses in line.
>> Do you at least agree that we must provide RDF file that are valid
>> against
>> our Ontology ? Because this is our goal.
> Mine validated when I sent them through, see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Jun/0058.html

Your file validated the *RDF validator*. This means they were syntaxlly
correct. It does not mean they are valid against our Ontology.
Just like an XML file is well formed it does not mean it validates against
its DTD or schema. Please try to understand the difference here and our
goal: We must publish RDF files to the world that are conformant to our


>> When all the files are provided. We decided that we would assign
>> reviwer(s) to make sure the files do validate. Meanwhile it is up to the
>> editors to provide complete and conformant files to the guideline.
> OK, maybe text files can be extended to cover all of the metadata that
> you are asking for. That's not so simple for binary media files. I've
> done what I can to put metadata in there. Then I wrote the RDF files
> that represent the content of the media files and made sure they
> validated, see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Jun/0058.html

Again here please read what the WG  requests. We never requested to cover
all of the metadata,as I have already explained to you. Furthermore we
said if you are missing properties, you should provide the HTML table with
the column 'RDF-tested' showing which properties you have used in your

> .

> If that is about vocabulary used in the RDF files, then it's a matter
> of making all the files consistent, which is better done by a single
> author than by everyone who provided the format-specific files.
>> I have no RDF and OWL expertise  nor expertise for every formats
>> provided
>> (Only editors do) to check all the RDF files.
> Who are those editors then that are supposed to have RDF and OWL
> expertise. I'm certainly not one of them. I only have expertise in
> encoding the audio and video files, which I did, and whose metadata
> content that I encoded I fully described in RDF files that I authored
> manually by inspecting how others had done theirs (see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Jun/0002.html).
> To make those RDF files persistent across the collection isn't my
> expertise and I'm sure to get it wrong, which will just end in more
> cycles going back and forth.

Hum, it seems you don't want to allow time to edit these two
tests cases.
Participation into a W3C WG is indeed time consumming. When you joined the
MAWG you commited to this statement " Effective participation to Media
Annotations Working Group is expected to consume one work day per week for
each participant; two days per week for editors."
see MAWG charter

I am only trying to coordinate the work of this Group to have our specs
move forward to REC. I can not do anything if people don't want to work.
Please refer to the co chairs Daniel and Joakim (that I am copying here)
for the future of these formats in the Ontology spec.

Thierry Michel
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 08:30:22 UTC

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