Edit comment LC-2411 for Media Annotations Working Group

Quick access to LC-2389 LC-2393 LC-2398 LC-2403 LC-2404 LC-2405 LC-2411 LC-2417 LC-2418

Comment LC-2411

Comment Shortname:

Commenter: Karen Colye <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>

Message-id:

Section of the document concerned:

[Free text description]Document as a wholeOntology for Media Resource 1.0 /**/ /**/ /* added fo... Ontology for Media Resource 1.0 W3C Working Draft 08 June 2010 Abstract Status of this Document Table of Contents Appendices 1 Introduction 1.1 Formats in scope 1.2 Formats out of scope 2 Terminology Definition Definition Definition Definition Definition 3 Property value type definitions 3.1 URI 3.2 String 3.3 Integer 3.4 Float 3.5 Date 4 Property definitions 4.1 Core property definitions 4.1.1 Namespace of core property definitions: http://www.w3.org/ns/ma-ont 4.1.2 Description of the approach followed for the property definitions 4.1.3 Core properties 4.2 Property mapping table 4.2.1 Rationale regarding the mapping table 4.2.1.1 Semantic Level Mappings 4.2.1.2 Syntactic Level Mappings 4.2.1.3 Mapping expression 4.2.2 The mapping table 4.2.2.1 CableLabs 1.1 4.2.2.2 DIG 4.2.2.3 EBUCore 4.2.2.4 EXIF 4.2.2.5 ID3 4.2.2.6 IPTC 4.2.2.7 LOM 4.2.2.8 MediaRDF 4.2.2.9 MediaRSS 4.2.2.10 METS 4.2.2.11 MPEG7 4.2.2.12 OGG 4.2.2.13 SMTPD 4.2.2.14 TVA 4.2.2.15 TXFeed 4.2.2.16 XMP 4.2.2.17 YouTube 5 Conformance Requirements A References (Normative) B References (Non-Normative) C Acknowledgements (Non-Normative)
or

Refinement of the section concerned:

Status:

open proposal pending resolved_yes resolved_no resolved_partial other assigned to Nobody

Type: substantive editorial typo question general comment undefined

Resolution status:

Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter

Response status:

No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):

Comment:

Hello all,

with this mail I am forwarding LC comments from Karen Colye
kcoyle@kcoyle.net . She does not want to join the mailing list, but will be happy to reply to hour resolution.

Best,
Felix

1. The scope of the ontology should be clarified as being stored digital resources. It should also be made clear whether these resources MUST be accessible online, or could be offline.

2. You should add PBCORE (http://pbcore.org) to the list. This is a metadata set for broadcast media, and I believe it interrelates to the BBC metadata.
Original broadcast date is key for these materials, as is the name of the show or series (which can be different from the name of the episode).

3. There doesn't seem to be much for describing the content of the media.
There is only the description field. I suspect that many media organizations
have a more complex view, and will need for synopsis to be separate from
subjects for the purposes of display. Also, for broadcast programs with
multiple segments, they need a say to say, for example:
0-1 minute Introductions
1-19 minute: Interview with x
19-22 minutes: news segment
22-31 minute: Interview with y
I don't remember if these are already in PBCore.

3. You will probably eventually need to include some preservation metadata.
This is especially important for any digital media that have been derived
from physical media. PREMIS is probably overkill.... but you may be able to
pick a few elements from that.

Hope this is helpful. If not, feel free to ignore!

kc

Related issues: (space separated ids)

WG Notes: 1.The scope of the ontology ... resources can be accessible online througout a URI or could be offline. 2.The mappings tables included in the Ontology specification are established from the Media Ontology's core properties to various multimedia metadata formats. This list of formats is not closed, nor does it pretend to be exhaustive. The MA working Group is open to addition of more metadata formats. If there are particular metadata formats like Public Broadcasting metadata, you would like to see included in this specification, please bring your expertise to the working group and we also invite you to join the Media Annotations Working Group. --> We could add an example for "broadcastDate" property attribute Chris to darft this example. 3. Describing the content of the media. Same issue as . WG should coordinate with the semantic Coord WG for a final resolution. same answer as for the "embedded subtitle" case for 2nd part, and we have to decide on a way of representing semantic descriptions... can also point her to the fact that there are separate properties for keywords, genre too 4. Need to include some preservation metadata. This is out of our scope. We introduced common wide spread propterties

Resolution: Dear Karen, The Media Annotations Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Ontlology for Media Resource 1.0 published on 08 June 2010. Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and to send us comments. The Working Group's response to your comment is included below. Please review it carefully and *let us know by email at public-media-annotation@w3.org if you agree with it* or not before deadline date [@@-oct-2010]. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the pportunity to raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation Track. Thanks, For the Media Annotations Working Group, Thierry Michel, W3C Team Contact 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Aug/0000.html 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/ ----------------- MAWG Resolution: ----------------- Response to the comments, we have copied your comments and added our answers to each of them inline ([MA]). ---------------------------------------- 1. The scope of the ontology should be clarified as being stored digital resources. It should also be made clear whether these resources MUST be accessible online, or could be offline. [MA] The scope is not restricted to stored digital resources. The resources could be offline so there is no restriction on this. This is clarified in the definition of Media Resource [0]. 2. You should add PBCORE (http://pbcore.org) to the list. This is a metadata set for broadcast media, and I believe it interrelates to the BBC metadata. Original broadcast date is key for these materials, as is the name of the show or series (which can be different from the name of the episode). [MA] The mappings tables included in the Ontology specification are established from the Media Ontology's core properties to various multimedia metadata formats. This list of formats is not closed, nor does it pretend to be exhaustive. The MA working Group is open to addition of more metadata formats. If there are particular metadata formats like Public Broadcasting metadata, you would like to see included in this specification, please bring your expertise to the working group and we also invite you to join the Media Annotations Working Group. Additionally, the original broadcast date can be expressed with our ontology as a subtype of the createDate property. The type would be "broadcast date". 3. There doesn't seem to be much for describing the content of the media. There is only the description field. I suspect that many media organizations have a more complex view, and will need for synopsis to be separate from subjects for the purposes of display. Also, for broadcast programs with multiple segments, they need a say to say, for example: 0-1 minute Introductions 1-19 minute: Interview with x 19-22 minutes: news segment 22-31 minute: Interview with y I don't remember if these are already in PBCore. [MA] The relation property can be used to point to more complex semantic annotations. E.g., if semantic annotations consist of triples stored in a separate file, then use ma:relation with the relation equal to 'annotation' and the URI would be the location of the RDF file. For annotations of multiple segments, different fragments of a media resource are also considered as media resources. Hence, it is possible to provide descriptions, keywords, or relation properties for a temporal fragment of the media resource. 3. You will probably eventually need to include some preservation metadata. This is especially important for any digital media that have been derived from physical media. PREMIS is probably overkill.... but you may be able to pick a few elements from that. [MA]This is out of our scope. The relation property could be used to link with preservation metadata if needed. [0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/#media-resource

(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)