Media Annotations Working Group Teleconference

27 Jan 2009


See also: IRC log


pchampin, Thierry, wbailer, raphael, joakim, veronique, tobias, wonsuk, victor, thierry, werner, rapahel
Frank, Felix, Michel_Jean_Pierre




<trackbot> Date: 27 January 2009

<raphael> Thierry, I muted you, you made a lot of noise :-(

<tmichel> I get a terrible BUZZZZZZ

<raphael> thierry, are you skyping?

<tmichel> No I am using a phone over IP, but I can't hear a thing

<tmichel> I will redial in

<tmichel> It is much better now

<tmichel> We have regrets from Felix,

<tmichel> Michele Minno ,Jean-Pierre

<tmichel> Looking for a vulunteer to scribe ...

<tmichel> Scribe:joakim

co-chair Daniel will be back soon

<tmichel> There was a meeting ?

Last week telecom meetings are not on the web

<raphael> There was a meeting, and the minutes are at http://www.w3.org/2009/01/20-mediaann-minutes.html

<tmichel> The scribe should send the minutes with the URI

<raphael> The Media Fragments WG keep the minutes in the same web space, but remove the 'draft' when the minutes have been fixed and approved

Actions points

The Scribe should mail the edited minutes to the public mail list

Should we include Victor's contribution "Multimedia Presentation material" to the uc document?

<raphael> Is it http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Jan/0049.html ?

<Victor> Action 55 was attended here:

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 55

<Victor> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Jan/att-0049/00-part

<Victor> We got no comments on the email

who has read the document, and has an opinion?

Werner: it's important, but maybe it should hold cross all use cases?

<Victor> Does any other Use Case support Requirement 7?

<VeroniqueM> I think that it is a very interesting topic but i think that it is mostly related to the ongoing question of considering complex/simple models, maybe the latter question should be answered first?

Victor: Is it possible to change an existing use case and include no / into that one?

<pchampin> +1

Veronique: The UC7 could be incorporated into cultural heritage UC!


<wbailer> agree to including it in CH use case, maybe also in MM adaptation (if we make a use case out of that)

Veronique: This is related to the question of the complexity of the model

<raphael> I also think this text should go in the CH use case

Victor: Add a sentence to the CH description

<Victor> By changing the last paragraph....

Action 55 is now about reformulating th CH description

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 55

regret+ tobias

<raphael> good job Werner, Frank :-)

Werner: many mpeg-7 properties could be mapped to XMP, but some are not covered in XMP

We discuss later how to alter the mapping agenda

close 74

<raphael> close ACTION-74

<trackbot> ACTION-74 Review SMPTE closed

<raphael> close ACTION-73

<trackbot> ACTION-73 review with werner MPEG-7 closed

<pchampin> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Jan/0061.html

<tobias> done already

<tobias> has been done already the last time

Pierre Antoine: The DC/DCTerm disucssuion is open on the mailinglist

PA: Don't agree that the main question is about the API

can you speak louder?


PA: We should also define the low level meaning of the propoerties, not only the high level semantics

cant hear

How can we define the low level mapping?

<raphael> I do see some problems to have discrepancies between having on one hand a lightweight semantics for the creator property (accept string value) in the API and on the other hand another semantics for the same property (URI value) in the ontology

we could define the target of the properties precisely

<tmichel> how could that be done ?

PA: we should have an Ontology that define this

Can raphael explain his point?

<tobias> Zakim ??P18 is me

Raphael: Should it be two different return values

PA: If we map according to the mapping table, it would return very hetrogenus values
... Prefer to be more formal in the Ontology

<pchampin> but I agree that we could also be formal only at the API level

joakim: we could be practical doing toy applications and decide after how to cope with the proble,

PA: agrees that we should be practical as soon as possible

Veronique: based on what?

PA. we should aim at making an intermediate representation

PA: We should have a more precise idea of the global structure of the API

We should have a common view of the complexity level before implmenting

<VeroniqueM> we can also have different levels of complexity of the representations, domain dependant?

Does any one have a suggestion on how to move on?

<VeroniqueM> DC and VRA and XMP exist in RDF, then we can use rdf-ways of representing mappings

Veronique: We can use the level of mapping/link representation found in existing implmentations

PA: the level is different in different implementations
... Maybe to propose some example code for each case


PA: divide the problem per use case
... it should work whatever the format

<raphael> Raphael: does it mean then that implementation = 1/ (python/java/pick_yours) code expressing mappings between some properties ; 2/ (owl/skos) code expressing mappings between some properties, etc. ?

PA: the code doesnt have to represent the mapping
... the mapping should be hidden

Either a mapping relationship or an ontology

<Victor> but the mapping itself has to be represented

<raphael> or ... being not exclusive, it could be both :-)

the mapping should be hidden to the developer


PA: Was thinking about writing code showing how to use our API
... Write code that illustrates how to use our API

can PA start to draft a use case?

<pchampin> ok

we did not have time to finish the agenda

our first public document was published last monday

we have telecon next week same time

Victor: Will attend the MPEG meeting next week

respond to Victors PPT before the end of the week

we should start to collect updates for the UC doc

<Victor> ok

<Victor> goodbye!

<tobias> Tobias: regarding action-66: sent it to the list already on the 19th

<Victor> ciao!

<Victor> i was also attendee!


Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/01/27 14:15:43 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133  of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Vicots/Victor's/
Succeeded: s/sson/soon/
Succeeded: s/implmentation/representation/
Succeeded: s/ontology/API/
Succeeded: s/suggestino/suggestion/
Succeeded: s/foer/for/
Found Scribe: joakim
Inferring ScribeNick: joakim
Default Present: pchampin, Thierry, wbailer, raphael, joakim, veronique, tobias, wonsuk
Present: pchampin Thierry wbailer raphael joakim veronique tobias wonsuk victor thierry werner rapahel
Regrets: Frank Felix Michel_Jean_Pierre
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Jan/0065.html

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 27 Jan 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-mediaann-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]