Media Annotations Working Group Teleconference -- 01 Sep 2009

<joakim> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Aug/0023.html

<joakim> scribe: Chris

<joakim> https://www.dimis.fim.uni-passau.de/~stegmai/w3c_ontology_semudate09.pdf

<florian> https://www.dimis.fim.uni-passau.de/~stegmai/w3c_ontology_semudate09.pdf

florian comments the ongoing work for the Semudate2009 paper

different approaches for ontology design are discussed

florian: submission is septembre 7th
... feedback is welcome

Joakim: Topic: Media Fragments WD review
... Raphael has asked us for a formal review of Use cases and

requirements for Media Fragments WG

<veroniqueM> I haven't looked at it yet

Joakim: who plans to read it?

<florian> me not either

<fsasaki> felix can take an action itemto read the document

<wbailer> i plan to read it

<veroniqueM> I will have a look at the document, probably later this week, before next week monday anyway

<fsasaki> probably everybody should just send comments to the list, and we can merge them

<veroniqueM> good idea!

<scribe> ACTION: Felix to read the document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-mediaann-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-150 - Read the document [on Felix Sasaki - due 2009-09-08].

<daniel> long time no talk...glad to see all of you today

Joakim: next item

<fsasaki> felix: sorry, very noise today, so I will type ...

<fsasaki> .. the mail is just FYI, so no action needed for the moment IMO

Joakim: link with Technical Architecture Group

<fsasaki> .. the TAG will probably come to use sooner or later

<joakim> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-mediaont-10-20090618/

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

action-47 for Werner: ongoing

Werner: has now a new affiliation
... no changes in work for the WG

raphael: works now as invited expert for the WG due to new employer

<fsasaki> felix: this is ongoing, please keep it open

<fsasaki> .. I have to go through the tables again to check

<raphael> thanks to Veronique and Felix for providing comments on the Media Fragments WD, please, send your comments to our list

action-124 for felix: ongoing

review of action items

close action-130

<trackbot> ACTION-130 Create an XSL transformation for the format mapping sheets closed

<raphael> trackbot, start telecon

<trackbot> Date: 01 September 2009

close action-131

<trackbot> ACTION-131 Add a datatype column to the format mapping sheets closed

close action-132

<trackbot> ACTION-132 Add a column for XPath expressions to the format sheets closed

action-134 for David:

action-134 for David: ongoing

action-135 for David: ongoing

action-136 for Joakim: added proposal on the wiki

http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/Sub_Types

werner: wonders if all relation types are needed

Joakim: will review the relation types for creator and contributor

action-136 for Joakim: ongoing

Werner: added grouping in the main summary table
... asks for feedback

<joakim> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/ontology10/WD/summary.html

<florian> +1 (grouping)

Werner: should we apply the grouping for all other tables?

<raphael> +1 for grouping

<veroniqueM> I think that it makes sense and would improve the readability of the table

<veroniqueM> +1

<wonsuk> +1

<fsasaki> +1

Joakim: is the summary table mature enough to extend it to all tables?

close action-137

<trackbot> ACTION-137 Update attributes table closed

close action-145

<trackbot> ACTION-145 Elaborate on the API return types (structured and unstructured) by providing examples closed

close action-146

<trackbot> ACTION-146 Define sub-types for the different properties closed

<raphael> ACTION-148?

<trackbot> ACTION-148 -- WonSuk Lee to start work and collaboration on the API draft document -- due 2009-07-03 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/148

<raphael> ACTION-147?

<trackbot> ACTION-147 -- Thierry Michel to check status of Web IDL for web api's -- due 2009-07-03 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/147

Thierry: no clear view yet when new working draft from the WebApp WG will be published
... will contact them again and report

action-147 for Thierry: ongoing

Wonsuk: work started on the API draft document
... proposed description of each section in the document
... first draft should be made by 15th of September

action-148 for Wonsuk: ongoing

<raphael> ACTION-149?

<trackbot> ACTION-149 -- David Singer to review of whole of ontology doc with veronique -- due 2009-07-28 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/149

Veronique: will have a look by next week

action-149 for David (and Veronique): ongoing

<joakim> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Aug/0000.html

<fsasaki> Felix: I have to leave soon, but Dave already answered my questions about http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Aug/0000.html already, If you have further feedback about http://www.sasakiatcf.com/felix/ma/02/ and whether it implements correctly http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/Strawman_API_design_and_notes , it would be great

<raphael> Could we edit this action into a more meaningful label? such as: Felix to review the Media Fragments WD ?

<joakim> http://www.sasakiatcf.com/felix/ma/02/

API Design

Florian: IDL seems best for first step
... afterwards we could use other language like Java or ECMAScript

<fsasaki> +1

<wonsuk> +1

Feed back from PFWG

<florian> IDL or WebIDL

<joakim> We request that you provide a property to indicate the location of alternate versions

Joakim: no response has been given to the Protocols and Formats WG

<raphael> What is the range of the DCMI isFormatOf property ? is it a litteral or a URI of the mime type ?

Werner: the question posed by the PFWG is not really clear
... the meaning of "alternate version" is vague
... will forward an answer to the mailing list for approval

<scribe> ACTION: Werner to formulate an answer on the feed back from PFWG (Protocols and Formats WG) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-mediaann-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-151 - Formulate an answer on the feed back from PFWG (Protocols and Formats WG) [on Werner Bailer - due 2009-09-08].

<joakim> 0. abstract à need to make first draft

<joakim> 1. Introduction à need to make first draft

<joakim> 2. Terminology à firstly add the terms from ontology doc if we need. And then add additional terms if we need.

<joakim> 3. Data type Description à Do anyone have ideas ?

First WD of API DOC

<joakim> 4. API Description à After referred Strawman API design and notes page[1] in wiki, describe draft APIs based on the core properties of ontology doc.

<joakim> 5. Examples of how to use the API(in Java for example(chris), web IDL) à I think it could be covered later after mature of APIs.

<tobias> @Raphael: isFormatOf has domain/range http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource; this is defined in the domain/range document issued in in 2007: http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/07/02/domain-range/

<raphael> Joakim: we look for more editors of this doc

Joakim: who is working on the document now

Wonsuk: Florian, Victor, and Chris
... looking for volunteers for each part
... asks feedback on the initial structure of the API doc

Joakim: should we decide who works on which section now?

Florian: maybe it is a bit too early?

<daniel> I recommend to continue this activity in mailing list

<veroniqueM> I think that the paper that some of us are co-writing could be a nice starting point for the API document

<raphael> Is the goal of this doc to document the API ?

<raphael> what would be its status ? a note ?

<veroniqueM> I thought it would be to describe the principles under which the possible implementations are done

Raphael: is the document only technical (like produced by javadoc) or to explain the entire API in all it's aspects?
... if it is a guide for implementations it is not really appropriate as a recommendation

Joakim: the document should result in a recommendation

Wonsuk: the goal is to define the API to handle the metadata formats

<veroniqueM> I think that it is important to describe the API in the fashion of the draft paper

Joakim: are we obliged to make a recommendation

Thierry: yes

<veroniqueM> I could not understand Daniel

<veroniqueM> we have to know what to put in the document for it to be a recommendation sometime :)

Joakim: we need to have a concrete plan for the document

<florian> +1 @ vero

<veroniqueM> we should know what to write...

<florian> that?s exactly what i wanted to say a few minutes ago

Raphael: when the ontology changes the API needs to change accordingly

Joakim: yes, there is a direct link

Raphael: why not use same structure as ontology document
... grouping properties like in the ontology

Wonsuk: we could use the Semudate paper as a starting base for the API document

Joakim: let's put the deadline on the outline on end of this week

<veroniqueM> I think we should simply remove what is not relevant in this paper for the API document and see what needs to be written

Wonsuk: we should continue this discussion by email

Florian: there are too much undefined topics in the document

maybe somebody should try defining the content of the sections to move on?

<florian> +1

<raphael> +1 for someone to better identify the content of each section to move on

Joakim: maybe we can start on some sections

<tobias> +1

<veroniqueM> +1

Wonsuk: volunteers for section 4

Joakim: Wonsuk can provide a first version of section 4 (API description)

<raphael> I had a look at other W3C spec, for example the OWLspecification, which also has developed an API

<raphael> note that this API is not part of the spec

<raphael> but the spec contains some general guidelines for the API, see http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#app-DLinRDF

<veroniqueM> +1 to Florian: we should get the content written first, then write the introduction and abstract once we agree on the content

<raphael> in OWL vocab, this is an Annex: Rules of Thumb for OWL DL ontologies

<daniel> This is over...let's keep working on that issue in mailing list

<raphael> Chris: you have normative and non-normative annex

<raphael> ... so if your question is about the status of the annex, then it depends :-)

Veronique: we can describe the API on high level for now as it is done in the paper

<tobias> there is an API specification document by the Geolocation people which has been recently released: http://www.w3.org/TR/geolocation-API/

<joakim> +1

<raphael> +1 tobias, and a rec track document

Joakim: Wonsuk will make draft for section 4

<joakim> bye

<raphael> [adjourned]

<florian> btw

<florian> vicotr is writting an api paper

<florian> you should talk to him ;)

<raphael> ah! victor from Spain ?

<raphael> Presents: Chris, Daniel, Joakim, Florian, Veronique, Tobias, Raphael, Wonsuk, Werner

- DRAFT -

Media Annotations Working Group Teleconference

01 Sep 2009

Attendees

Contents

review of action items

API Design

Feed back from PFWG

First WD of API DOC

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output