See also: IRC log
<fsasaki> daniel presents ITU-T and MPEG liaisons. We sent letters to both groups. We will contact them again when we have public drafts, asking for review
<joakim> felix presents the "Feature Document" explaining the mapping of formats
<joakim> The cells should describe the relations (1:1, same as, equvalent etc.)
<daniel> VRA: http://www.vraweb.org/projects/vracore4/index.html
<VeroniqueM> is the presentation in the XGR-vocabularies enough or would it be useful to have a more detailed review of the properties that could be useful for our usecases?
<VeroniqueM> about VRA, I mean
<fsasaki> about veronique 's question: we want to be detailed in the review, always using XMP as means of comparison
<daniel> Timeline for the review of format mapping : 20th of January
<fsasaki> s/use cases & requirements doc/
<VeroniqueM> zakim [VrijeUni] is me
<daniel> API discussion and Feature table discussion will take place in this morining session.
<fsasaki> scribe: daniel
UC&Req. discussion is in afternoon session.
format mapping can be reference to design our API architecture
testing suite for API interoperability
general approach (e.g. dc) is firat, and more specific is accordingly seems useful approach
Joakim: how to do API test without any specific description ?
to move the draft to the standard publication, WG should have a test and interoperability among different implementations
To survive in the real market, our API and spec. should be as light as we can.
after each implemtation, they should give the result of their implementations to the WG
Felix: don't want to just focus on RDF format for our specification.
Victor: in RDF, basic model and extended model can be used
the scope of our work does not to define a new metadata, but propose a interoperable working between the existing metadata.
<VeroniqueM> "interoperable working between the existing metadata" has still to be expressed under one label, no?
<VeroniqueM> which can mean to use one standard as the reference or to have generic "terms" that point to the constructs of different standards, maybe?
<VeroniqueM> I think that it would be unfair to take one standard as The reference
<VeroniqueM> but of course it makes sense to use a standard as first reference model, like was decided for XMP
<tobiasb> what do you mean with unfair?
<VeroniqueM> well, that would promote one standard as The standard
<VeroniqueM> this is not what we want, right?
in room, as of today, they are reaching to the XMP conclusion as a core reference
<VeroniqueM> but do we use the XMP terminology for our core ontology?
<VeroniqueM> and link other formats to this one
<VeroniqueM> or define a more generic layer that points to XMP and others?
<VeroniqueM> this is basically ma question :)
Felix is now drawing on the board in terms of the existing spec relationship
<tobiasb> this is a good question, veronique. I will raise it in the meeting.
confirmance is not part of standard, but also important task within WG
Felix: saying about confirmance example: http://www.w3.org/TR/its/#conformance
tough summary: confirmance test is needed to increase the quality of draft toward standard, not not parts of standard official description. all features in confirmance test will be totally based on the format mapping analysis
<fsasaki> example of ontology testing at http://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out#sum
<fsasaki> another conformance example at http://www.w3.org/TR/dcontology/#conformance
Chris: not use XMP name itself, but use a new changed name for that. That's acceptable.
This is renaminig issue, for example: MPEG
<VeroniqueM> what do you mean with ": MPEG"?
Veronique, our rough summary is to refer to XMP, and rename it later.
next item: feature table discussion: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/FeaturesTable
<joakim> Alt for unstructured is to repeat ambigous fields
<fsasaki> ACTION: Felix to check with Adobe about what properties of XMP are actually used [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/10-mediaann-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-49 - Check with Adobe about what properties of XMP are actually used [on Felix Sasaki - due 2008-12-17].
we will start 2 PM for UC&Req document
<wonsuk> * now daniel check that.
<Victor> #me tests zakim...
Felix: illustrating on the UC & Req. document
taking a look at Introduction section. any comments on that ?
Chris: what definition of media object ?
our scope is mainly focusing on video, but also deal with others media types
<fsasaki> The scope is mainly video media objects, but we take also other media objects into account if their metadata information is related to video.
<fsasaki> The development of the requirements has three major inputs: Use cases, analysis of existing standards, and a description of canonical media processes.
<tobiasb> Interoperability: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/mmsem/XGR-interoperability/
<tobiasb> Vocabularies: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/mmsem/XGR-vocabularies/
<VeroniqueM> I can work on 2.5
<tobiasb> Werner: Can work toegether with Veronique on 2.5
<VeroniqueM> ok, perfect!
<fsasaki> ACTION: Werner and Veronique and Hui to update CH UC following the pattern of e.g. 2.6, 2.7 etc. - due to 2008-12-17 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/10-mediaann-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-50 - and Veronique and Hui to update 2.4 (cultural heritage uc) following the pattern of e.g. 2.6, 2.7 etc. [on Werner Bailer - due 2008-12-10].
<fsasaki> ACTION: Tobias to make a drawing to make clear what we are not doing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/10-mediaann-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-51 - Make a drawing to make clear what we are not doing [on Tobias Bürger - due 2008-12-17].
<tobiasb> Tobias to make the drawing based on Felix's drawing on the board
<fsasaki> ACTION: Jean-Pierre to make "Recommendation across different media types - Description / Example" part clearer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/10-mediaann-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Make \"Recommendation across different media types - Description / Example\" part clearer [on Jean-Pierre EVAIN - due 2008-12-17].
Elements of an EmotionML 1.0 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/emotion/XGR-emotionml-20081120/
Annotating content with location information A group of friends is hiking through the Scottish highlands. Some of them write short notes and take pictures at various points throughout the journey and store them using a Web application that can work offline on their hand-held devices. Whenever they add new content, the application automatically tags it with location data from the Geolocation API (which, in turn, uses the on-board GPS device). Every time t
once getting our UC&Req document, we can send it out to the Geolocation WG for their official reference
Annotating content with location information use case @ Geolocation is related to our UC 2.6 Life Log
<tobiasb> All: The video use case is too general and should be revised
<VeroniqueM> should it be kept at all?
<tobiasb> yes - some parts will be redistributed to other parts of the document
<VeroniqueM> ok, yes
<VeroniqueM> this is what I meant: it is not a use case in itself :)
<tobiasb> some very general parts will be moved to the introduction
<fsasaki> ACTION: Joakim to revise the introduction, using material from the "video" UC section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/10-mediaann-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-53 - Revise the introduction, using material from the \"video\" UC section [on Joakim Söderberg - due 2008-12-17].
<tobiasb> The video use case will be removed then
<VeroniqueM> the references to the standards in the intro section have been removed, I have a list of these references, to include to the introduction too
<VeroniqueM> shall I send them to the list?
<VeroniqueM> or integrate them after Joakim's modifications?
<tobiasb> we will put a reference to the multimedia semantics incubator group deliverable about vocabularies instead of listing all the standards.. the deliverable contains most of them. But it would be useful if you put your list in the Wiki.
<VeroniqueM> ok, will do!
<tobiasb> this would be great, because you had 2,3 formats mentioned which are not in the vocabularies deliverable which I mentioned before.
<VeroniqueM> there was one format mentionned in the doc that I could not find... I'll have to check out in the mailing list what was meant by this last ref
<tobiasb> which one?
<VeroniqueM> I was not sure that the ref for iTunes XML is the correct one
<tobiasb> I guess that iTunes XML is just a playlist format? Look here: http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd
<Victor> someone has made a photo of us...
Veronique, sorry...: here is our photo: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/images/e/e6/MediaAnn-Ghent-200812.JPG
<fsasaki> ACTION: Frank to consider revising the "multimedia presentation material" and turn it into a use case following the pattern of the UC & req document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/10-mediaann-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Consider revising the \"multimedia presentation material\" and turn it into a use case following the pattern of the UC & req document [on Frank Nack - due 2008-12-17].
<fsasaki> ACTION: Victor to work on imaging life cycle use case and turn it into a use case following the pattern of the UC & req document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/10-mediaann-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Victor
<fsasaki> ACTION: Victor2 to work on imaging life cycle use case and turn it into a use case following the pattern of the UC & req document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/10-mediaann-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Victor2
<fsasaki> ACTION: Víctor to work on imaging life cycle use case and turn it into a use case following the pattern of the UC & req document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/10-mediaann-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Work on imaging life cycle use case and turn it into a use case following the pattern of the UC & req document [on Víctor Rodríguez - due 2008-12-17].
<fsasaki> ACTION: Felix to create text for r06-r11 until Monday and send it to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/10-mediaann-minutes.html#action10]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Create text for r06-r11 until Monday and send it to the list [on Felix Sasaki - due 2008-12-17].
Felix will fill out req 6 - 11 by next monday and get back to WG for the review
<fsasaki> joakim to rewrite introduction including video material
<fsasaki> veronique et al. to revise CH use case
<fsasaki> felix to write text for r06-r11
<fsasaki> Friday next week: send draft to fragments WG
UC and Req text elaboration should be done by middle of next week.
<fsasaki> give deadline for review from fragment WG until Monday 5th
<fsasaki> taking feedback into account until Monday 12th
<fsasaki> publication Monday 19th
meeting wrap-up and AOB before closing
<scribe> ACTION: ITEM to http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/open [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/10-mediaann-minutes.html#action11]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - ITEM
<fsasaki> getting through AIs
<fsasaki> another ACTION ITEM: Everybody to update mapping table until January 20th
<victor2> we said to distribute work in the next conference meeting taking into account that we will not meet in a long time...
thanks everyone for coming and see you in Barcelona on April of 2009 for the next meeting
special thanks to Eric and IBBT people for hosting our excellent meeting
special thanks to Felix for your excellent activities and all efforts on the WG and looking forward to seeing you soon in the W3C
closing the meeting...thanks all