Media Annotations WG

<Daniel> I just participate in IRC due to call trouble in minneapolis. sorry

<fsasaki> scribe: VeroniqueM

Agenda review / approval of previous minutes

<fsasaki> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2008Nov/0080.html

<fsasaki> http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-mediaann-minutes.html

previous minutes are approved

Selection of scribe for next meeting

next scribe: Joakim

Action items

<fsasaki> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/open

<fsasaki> ACTION-22 - pending, waiting for feedback

http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/22

<fsasaki> close ACTION-32

<trackbot> ACTION-32 Make a liaison with MPEG using information from the XP homepage closed

<fsasaki> ACTION-33 - pending, waiting for feedback

<fsasaki> close ACTION-34

<trackbot> ACTION-34 Contact Open IPTV forum closed

<Daniel> who's responsible for ACTION-32 MPEG liaison ?

<fsasaki> close ACTION-36

<trackbot> ACTION-36 Make a liaison with OMA closed

<fsasaki> Daniel, that was you, no?

<Daniel> yes, me

<fsasaki> ok. Should we keep the action item open?

<Daniel> I am in Minneapolis and at room, but internet line is not good for making a call

<fsasaki> ok. I will keep ACTION-32 open for now.

<vrodrgue> Ruben and me were causing noise because of acoustic coupling. We will share microphone and bother no more)

<Daniel> No, who should work for ACTION32 ?

<fsasaki> Daniel, maybe we can discuss this then you are back on the phone, and keep the action-32 just open for now. OK?

<Daniel> no problem

<fsasaki> ACTION-37 - Write a mail about the general structure of the use cases / req document - pending

Upcoming meetings / time schedule

<fsasaki> two more meetings before f2f. Goal before f2f:

<fsasaki> - finish XMP review, please look into http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/XMP

<fsasaki> - make progress with use case / requirements document

<fsasaki> - have a list of core questions about our scope, see "URI as value" and "proposal for ontology and API" thread

<fsasaki> Goals at f2f:

<fsasaki> a) 1 day for use case / requirements document

<fsasaki> b) 1/2 day for finding answers to the "scope" related questions

<fsasaki> c) 1/2 day to distribute and start work: people looking into mapping specific, existing formats to XMP, plus other work items related to b)

there are several questions to be answered before we can move on: what level of abstraction do we want, structured model or flat one, uri question etc.

at the f2f we could try to define the scope of the ontology

at the f2f we could try to define the scope of the ontologyand define properties to map

topics to be moved forward in the next calls and f2f meeting

<fsasaki> veronique: for the use case / req document we need input from the people who contributed

<fsasaki> .. bilateral discussions with the editors could be useful

Werner: we need a better dfinition of what is expected from the use cases in terms of requirements

Felix: two approaches are possible.. define use cases very clearly.. and define requirements and level of complexity.. other choice is starting from existing ontologies.. and define what complexity is needed in them
... we need to decide if we want the sequential approach: use case -> requirements -> api
... or work in parallel

Werner: the idea is not to create the ontology to cover all the needs from the use cases
... but check out the requirements and models that are relevant for more
... these will have more impact

Felix: f2f we can discuss the two drafts: api and requirement document

<fsasaki> veronique: idea to send use case on the list and the contributor could say "this was the intended meaning"

<fsasaki> veronquie: video use case is very vague

<fsasaki> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/VideoUC

<fsasaki> veronique: all use cases have some sentences which are unclear

Felix: maybe an idea could be for the contributors of each use case to clarify them, or another possibility could be to simplify these descriptions

<fsasaki> veronique: having a template might help

<scribe> ACTION: 37 to Felix to make a proposal for a template to describe the use cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-mediaann-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 37

<Daniel> good idea for having a template for the use cases

ACTION 37 Felix to make a proposal for a template to describe the use cases

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 37

XMP review

<fsasaki> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/XMP

Thierry contributed to the Dublin Core section

do people have specific ideas about a simple representation vs multilayer, or should this topic be discussed later, rather?

Draft for Use cases and requirements document

<fsasaki> veronique: I am rewriting the introduction, merging it with different views

<fsasaki> .. use cases related to media, context etc.

<VictorR> it is fine

<wbailer> +1

<fsasaki> .. cultural heritage is another one

<fsasaki> +1

Multilevel description review

<fsasaki> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/MultilevelDescriptionReview

Felix: could Ruben make a short introduction of his document/

<rtous> I've a problem with the micro

<fsasaki> np, waiting

<rtous> I can do it by IRC

<fsasaki> yes, go ahead

<rtous> We have identified several aspects related to multi-level description

<rtous> I've added a table to the end of the page

<rtous> 1) different abstractions (work-manifestation-instance-item)

<rtous> 2) intellectual property aspects (MVCO)

<rtous> 3) collections

<rtous> 4) whole/part

<rtous> 5) creation workflow (derived from)

<rtous> My conclusion:

<rtous> Resources are related, we should at least keep some links between them

<rtous> Like "dc:source" "dc:relation", etc

<tobiasb> I also would suggest to have a look at the FRBR relations

<rtous> however the possibility of a more complex structure should be considered

<rtous> this is all

<rtous> thanks

Slivia: maybe as was suggested by Silvia on the mailing list, these relations (FRBR) are related to collection management

<fsasaki> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2008Nov/0076.html

<fsasaki> (mail from Silvia)

<VictorR> they are not necessarility to collection management

Veronique: and we should not include a complex model in our ontology, but be able to "plug into" complex models

Veronique: no, agreed, but they are very "context dependent", somehow

<VictorR> This idea of plugging more complex models sounds reasonable

Veronique: that could be part of the requirements for tasks-related use cases

<wbailer> the plug-in could define specialisations of concepts in the core model, eg a more specific type of relation between resources

<scribe> ACTION: VeroniqueM to send around an exemple of what she means with "plugging into complex model" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-mediaann-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - VeroniqueM

Felix: are there other thoughts on Ruben's document?

<VictorR> I do naturally agree with Ruben´s document.

<wbailer> it provides a very good overview

<tobiasb> +1

<fsasaki> +1

<Daniel> +1

Proposal for ontology and api structure

<fsasaki> http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-api-1.0/mediaont-api-1.0.html

Felix: we had some discussions on the mailing list
... related to a proposal from MPEG
... also working on an API
... discussion about standalone format/not
... we can discuss this here too: what do people think?

<VictorR> MPEG´s API (called MXM) is still in an early stage but has interesting points to look at

<VictorR> [I participate also in its writting]

<VictorR> Yes, it is OK, together with Christian Timmerer

ACTION to VictoR to look into the MPEG API

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to

ACTION VictoR to look into the MPEG API

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - VictoR

ACTION VictorR to look into the MPEG API

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - VictorR

Felix: we could discuss the structure of the ontology

Tobias: depends on the use cases and requirements, what type of structure we want
... list is ok if the use cases can be fulfilled with that
... otherwise need of a more complex structure

ACTION Felix to draft a first agenda for the f2f meeting

<trackbot> Created ACTION-38 - Draft a first agenda for the f2f meeting [on Felix Sasaki - due 2008-11-25].

Felix: we should include a slot for this topic

transmission.cc

<fsasaki> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2008Nov/0030.html

Felix: we had feedback about this from a person from Yahoo!
... but did not get his info yet
... does anyone has opinions about this format?
... format is transmission cc

Tobias: format supposed to be simpler than media rss
... but can't really see the difference

Felix: google youtube API also uses mediaRSS, not sure if the use transmission.cc

<tobiasb> One difference is that TXFeed explicitely allows to reference external databases for metadata, videos and subtitle databases.

ACTION Tobias to put description about transmission cc in Wiki

<trackbot> Created ACTION-39 - Put description about transmission cc in Wiki [on Tobias Bürger - due 2008-11-25].

<js> Hi, Sorry for checking inlate I misstken the time

<vrodrgue> Thanks you, all

<tobiasb> bye!

<rtous> bye

<wonsuk> bye

<js> logout

<hui> bye

<erik> Felix ... For the 2nd F2F @ Ghent, Media Annotations has 9 (live) participants so far (Daniel, Tobias, Jean-Pierre, WonSuk, Joakim, Frank, Felix, Victor, Werner)

<erik> ... but only three have already booked their hotel (Daniel, Felix, Joakim) ... I just hope the other ones have booked elsewhere, or will book soon ... just letting you all know

<tobiasb> I also booked a hotel already...

<Daniel> thanks Erik for your info.

<erik> Hope to be able to call in next time and give some more info

<erik> bye

<Daniel> thanks Felix

<VictorR2> Hello,

<VictorR2> I have booked the hotel, too.

<VictorR2> Veronique, What about the Action you wanted to create and you failed to?

<VictorR2> was it anything about my User name?

logout