- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 11:49:11 +1100
- To: Guillaume Olivrin <golivrin@meraka.org.za>
- Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Looks good at first sight - in particular the SVG. Many thanks for drawing it! I haven't re-read the details, but will as I paste it into the Working Draft. Raphael: can you give me a quick intro to how to go about that or send a link that explains it? Thanks, Silvia. On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Guillaume Olivrin <golivrin@meraka.org.za> wrote: > Dear WG, > > This is a follow-up of ACTION-43 (Guillaume to incorporate changes > proposed by reviewers of the Use Case and Requirements Wiki page) now > closed. > > I have incorporated all the changes from the UC reviews (Raphael, Jack, > Guillaume and Davy) in the Wiki. I encourage you to review the new Draft > with all the changes incorporated at > http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Use_Cases_% > 26_Requirements_Draft. > > Below I raise a few points about the changes: > > > * I kept the (Out-Of-Scope) Use Cases in the Draft with the others. I > think it's important to show what's IN and what's OUT. Maybe we ought to > have more Out-Of-Scope use case... > > * The main structural changes to the UC draft are: > *1 I have fully removed Section 2 (the "technology" use cases) and > incorporated these UCs in with the first section under their appropriate > theme. > *2 The two parts of the draft are now called Functional and > Non-functional Requirements. > *3 I have given each UC a short name > > * (Ex-)Section 2 tried to give an account what Media Fragments meant for > existing technologies (and new developments thereof). Instead it gave UC > stories. Should we still try to capture in a separate wiki page > (discussion page) what features media fragments bring from the > technological point of view? For example to make Media Fragment explicit > by application (web browsers, media players, search engines) - i.e. > Search engines could return media fragments in their results, media > players could introduce extra meta-data and auto-generate playlists from > all fragments of a media, web browser will have URI rewrite schemes for > time and space etc ...). > > * UC similarities & relations : > > (Linking) Scenario 3: Portion of Music > related to > (Recomposing) Scenario 5: Music Samples > > (Linking) Scenario 4: Moving Windows of Interest > related to > (Annotating) Scenario 7: Spatial and Temporal Tagging > > (Linking) Scenario 1: Search Engine > related to > (Annotating) Scenario 5: Search Engine > related to > (Annotating) Scenario 1: Spatial Tagging of Images > > (Linking) Scenario 2: Region of an Image > related to > (Recomposing) Scenario 1: Reframing a photo in a slideshow > > It seems more interesting and explicit to have many specialised UC > rather than too generic ones. > > > > Also Captured > https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/thumb/4/40/Model_Video_Resource.jpg/800px-Model_Video_Resource.jpg > as SVG > http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Image:Model_of_a_Video_Resource.svg > and PNG > http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Image:Model_of_a_Video_Resource.png > > Additional UCs : > + The "Search engine" UC under "Annotating Media Fragments" > Guillaume wants to retrieve the images of each bike present at a recent > cycling event. Group photos and general shots of the event have been > published online and thanks to a query in a search engine, Guillaume can > now retrieve multiple individual shots of each bike in the collection. > > > Regards, > Guillaume > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2009 00:49:49 UTC