Media Annotations Working Group Teleconference -- 15 Sep 2009

<trackbot> Date: 15 September 2009

<florian> Zakim aaee is me

<scribe> Scribe: raphael

<scribe> scribenick: raphael

1. Admin

<joakim> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/08-mediaann-minutes.html

Proposal to accept minutes of last week telecon

No objections, minutes accepted

<pchampin> i volunteer

Pierre Antoine volunteered for scribing next week meeting

2. Action items

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

ACTION-124?

<trackbot> ACTION-124 -- Felix Sasaki to check - everybody responsible for a format: add a column describing syntactic information ("data types", see cable lab column "Type") to his table -- due 2009-06-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/124

<scribe> -- ongoing

ACTION-134?

<trackbot> ACTION-134 -- David Singer to revise e-mail on issues/updates of property description -- due 2009-07-02 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/134

<scribe> -- ongoing

ACTION-135?

<trackbot> ACTION-135 -- David Singer to update description of location to represent shot location -- due 2009-07-02 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/135

<scribe> -- ongoing

ACTION-136?

<trackbot> ACTION-136 -- Joakim Söderberg to will refine the subtypes, like ma:contributor, ma:publisher etc. -- due 2009-07-02 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/136

Joakim: I put a link on the wiki

close ACTION-136

<trackbot> ACTION-136 Will refine the subtypes, like ma:contributor, ma:publisher etc. closed

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

Wonsuk: you have all received the email from Florian about the issues
... I suggest we discuss these issues

Joakim: we will discuss them in the next agenda item, we can close this AP

close ACTION-148

<trackbot> ACTION-148 Start work and collaboration on the API draft document closed

ACTION-151?

<trackbot> ACTION-151 -- Werner Bailer to formulate an answer on the feed back from PFWG (Protocols and Formats WG) -- due 2009-09-08 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/151

Werner did that and we sent our review

close ACTION-151

<trackbot> ACTION-151 Formulate an answer on the feed back from PFWG (Protocols and Formats WG) closed

ACTION-152

ACTION-152?

<trackbot> ACTION-152 -- Thierry Michel to look into web idl with victor and others -- due 2009-09-15 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/152

Thierry: i start a thread discussion, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Sep/0035.html
... Victor confirmed that WebIDL could be used, as we do video on the web
... no bindings for C++, but more tailored to web based applications so fit our purpose
... webidl is anyway close to idl

<pchampin> +1

close ACTION-152

<trackbot> ACTION-152 Look into web idl with victor and others closed

ACTION-153?

<trackbot> ACTION-153 -- Joakim Söderberg to look into comments from werner on PFWG review -- due 2009-09-15 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/153

Joakim: this action is connected to 151

close ACTION-153

<trackbot> ACTION-153 Look into comments from werner on PFWG review closed

ACTION-154?

<trackbot> ACTION-154 -- Joakim Söderberg to ask dave about the relationship of digital data exchange with Apple stuff, ID3, iTunesXML, etc -- due 2009-09-15 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/track/actions/154

Joakim: I have sent an email but didn't get any answer
... leave it open

<scribe> -- ongoing

3. Status of First WD of API

<joakim> I think this initial draft is a good starting point. But there are a few major things, i am wondering about:

<joakim> a) what about using interfaces as Victor proposed in [1]?

<joakim> b) did we choose one of the two possibilities for the API already (specific vs. common)? AFAIK only a few of us discussed these two different approaches [2].

<joakim> c) the datatypes are only "placeholder" for the finite datatypes, or? Because some of them do not fit their purpose i guess.

<joakim> d) as Victor already pointed out, WebIDL is in scope of our group, so we should bring this discussion to an end and use it...

<joakim> I think we have to discuss this draft more closely in todays telecon.

<florian> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Sep/0037.html

Wonsuk: I haven't received many feedback yet on my document apart from Florian
... you can look at the API description (descriptive properties, identification, creator, content, etc)
... it includes the get and the set methods

it describes the interfaces based on toy implementation

Wonsuk: I suggest we discuss the issues mentioned in this document

Joakim: you want to discuss the categorization of the properties?

<chris> this classification conforms to the current mapping table

Wonsuk: do you have any questions about this?

[silence]

Joakim: is this categorization so important ?

Document from Victor: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Aug/att-0007/magw-idl.pdf

Document from Wonsuk: replace_URL

s/replace_URL/http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Sep/0037.html

Could we please avoid to send documents to individual people? I will remind that this group operates under public, so use the public mailing list

<florian> +1 raphael

Joakim: now, we need to discuss the datatypes

Wonsuk: the meaning of the RESULT is ... [to complete]

Joakim: should we have a section discussing the return types?

Wonsuk: yes perhaps, we have String, RESULT, List, Date

<chris> URI

<joakim> I guess it means: sucessful/unsuccesfull

Wonsuk: trying to explain again what RESULT is ...
... it means we can parse the result ? (syntactically correct?)

<pchampin> RESULT is what is sometimes called 'status', right?

<joakim> while (RESULT)

Wonsuk: yes, for while and if, we can use RESULT, so looks like a boolean evaluation

<joakim> I agree

<joakim> 3. Data type Description

<joakim> 4. API Description

Wonsuk: discussion about identificatin of the co-editors

Joakim: Chris, Florian, Werner, Victor?, Wonsuk: who is working on the sections 3 and 4?
... is it clear ? Perhaps someone should work on the datatypes, and someone else on the API

Chris: we haven't divided yet the work as you suggested
... Wonsuk has made this first draft but we haven't discussed it yet among the editors
... now is the first time we discuss it
... I will comment it from now on

Joakim: my suggestion is to divide the work and not introduce bottlenecks

Chris: yes, I can live with that

<Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to discuss another question about datatypes

Pierre Antoine: I'm not quite sure it is safe to split the work between datatypes and API

scribe: my proposal would be to split between properties which have structured values as results versus non-structured
... I think this has been mentioned on the list
... but I haven't read yet the follow-up of this dicussion or any decision

<florian> +1

scribe: I would vote for this way of splitting

Raphael: +1 for PA proposal

Chris: We haven't formally defined which properties should have a structured or non-structured values
... we have discussed that briefly at the last f2f, but we wanted to provide examples
... so we can decide which properties will get structured values or unstructured values

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

Chris: as far as I know, it is undecided yet for the properties

<pchampin> I think it is a pre-requisite to working on the actual API

<scribe> ACTION: chris and co-editors (wonsuk, florian, victor, werner) to come up for a proposal for a return type for all properties, i.e. structured or unstructured? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-mediaann-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-155 - And co-editors (wonsuk, florian, victor, werner) to come up for a proposal for a return type for all properties, i.e. structured or unstructured? [on Chris Poppe - due 2009-09-22].

<joakim> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Aug/att-0007/magw-idl.pdf

Joakim: in your email Florian, you reference a proposal from Victor

Florian: this is an IDL example yes

Raphael: can we transform this same example into WebIDL?

Florian: I think we haven't yet discussed enough Victor's proposal?
... how could we continue to discuss it?

<pchampin> from the WebIDL draft: "An interface is a specification of a set of interface members"

<pchampin> so it seems that WebIDL has interfaces as well

<pchampin> +1 for 1 method per property

Raphael: +1 too

Joakim: our idea is to indeed use WebIDL now
... How can we really be sure that the API will work?

Florian: should we build a reference implementation
... that complements the abstract API documentation

<pchampin> I think Joakim rather means "test cases"

Florian: in the same spirit that the MPEG one

Joakim: who should provide reference implementation

Raphael: there is no rules for that

<pchampin> if the reference implementations have to pass the same test-cases, does this mean that they have to be in the same language?

yes pchampin

Thierry: as raphael said, all W3C spec should go through implementations that pass test cases testing all features of the spec

Raphael: I suggest you look at the test cases developed by the Media Fragments WG as an example

<pchampin> I plan to update my toy implementation as well

Raphael: Media Fragments WG test cases: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/TestCases

<pchampin> but it's in python, which I don't think will be the final language

<pchampin> hence my question...

pchampin, the language used for the implementation does not matter

the test cases should specify, if you encounter feature a, what should you do, and how can you test it does the right thing

Wonsuk: if we use WebIDL for the API draft, do we have enough time given that we have not really experts from this group
... it is just my concern

Joakim: i will forward the question to the editors, Chris, do you think it is doable?

Chris: I think it is, since WebIDL is anyway very close to IDL
... I'm not (yet) a WebIDL expert

Raphael: I will remind that Doug Shelpers said that folks from his group would be happy to help us if we are stuck

Joakim: next meeting, we can discuss which datatypes to use for each properties

Pierre Antoine: I voted for one method per property, I think it is easier to work with

scribe: maybe for some properties, we will give the choice to the developer to use a simple or a structured value
... and in this case, we might provide 2 methods OR a parameter

Joakim: thanks for your thoughts

4. AOB

[silence]

Joakim: meeting, next Tuesday

<pchampin> bye

[adjourned]

- DRAFT -

Media Annotations Working Group Teleconference

15 Sep 2009

Attendees

Contents

1. Admin

2. Action items

3. Status of First WD of API

4. AOB

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output