IRC log of mediaann on 2009-11-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:44:48 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #mediaann
16:44:48 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:45:02 [wbailer]
Zakim, this is MAWG
16:45:02 [Zakim]
sorry, wbailer, I do not see a conference named 'MAWG' in progress or scheduled at this time
16:46:02 [wbailer]
Zakim, this will be MAWG
16:46:02 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, wbailer
16:46:02 [Daniel]
Daniel has joined #mediaann
16:48:42 [wbailer]
Meeting: MAWG F2F 2009-11-05
16:59:43 [Kangchan]
Kangchan has joined #mediaann
17:00:00 [joakim]
joakim has joined #mediaann
17:01:08 [wonsuk]
wonsuk has joined #mediaann
17:02:08 [Chris]
Chris has joined #mediaann
17:08:49 [florian]
florian has joined #mediaann
17:09:01 [wbailer]
scribe: wbailer
17:09:06 [wbailer]
chair: joakim
17:09:39 [wbailer]
present: daniel, wonsuk, chris, florian, veronique, wonsuk, werner
17:09:52 [wbailer]
topic: agenda
17:10:10 [wbailer]
joakim: reschedule to have important topics after parallel ac meeting ends
17:10:38 [wbailer]
wonsuk: we should discuss update of uc and requirements document
17:11:10 [wbailer]
agenda draft at
17:13:18 [Daniel]
self-introduction around the table
17:15:11 [wonsuk]
Present+ wonsuk
17:17:56 [Daniel]
Jaesung Han who is a new person from Samsung Electronics at this meeting
17:18:06 [wbailer]
topic: ontology improvement
17:18:39 [wbailer]
present+ jeasung
17:22:24 [wbailer]
veronique: in the joint paper we had different propositions for the ontology
17:22:59 [wbailer]
... questions: which option to follow?
17:23:13 [wbailer]
... other proposition: represent as event
17:24:56 [wbailer]
... event models by raphael troncy et al and at vua
17:25:04 [wbailer]
... merged the two
17:25:19 [wbailer]
... formal way of describing metadata
17:25:27 [wbailer]
chris: why use events?
17:25:37 [wbailer]
... why eg for technical properties?
17:25:59 [wbailer]
veronique: link technical properties to event (e.g. creation)
17:26:13 [wbailer]
... annotation has time dimension, supports versioning
17:26:43 [wbailer]
chris: this is metadata about properties and not about resource
17:26:59 [wbailer]
veronique: resource is also represented as an event, can be linked
17:27:46 [wbailer]
veronique: proposals in paper
17:28:02 [wbailer]
... link properties with skos (not desinged for that)
17:28:31 [wbailer]
... or more formal, owl equivalent
17:28:54 [wbailer]
veronique: do we keep the bag of properties we have now
17:29:06 [wbailer]
... or organise in an ontology
17:29:44 [wbailer]
joakim: we have a set of core attributes
17:29:58 [wbailer]
chris: these attributes are properties
17:30:26 [wbailer]
joakim: what do you call the relations between properties?
17:30:44 [wbailer]
veronique: property mappings
17:30:53 [solbi]
solbi has joined #mediaann
17:31:05 [wbailer]
... in wbailers and wonsuks proposal classes are used for modelling
17:31:19 [wbailer]
... alternative could be to represent them as events
17:31:40 [wbailer]
veronique: do we go for one or all of these options?
17:31:51 [wbailer]
... what is supported in the current apis?
17:32:20 [wbailer]
joakim: feedback from outside: where is the ontology? can it be applied to real time media
17:32:25 [wbailer]
... we need a primer document
17:32:53 [wbailer]
veronique: we need to define the ontology in order to implement the api based
17:33:06 [wbailer]
... maybe vote for the different options
17:33:17 [wbailer]
... or one api per ontology proposal
17:33:32 [wbailer]
... would the apis be still interoperable?
17:33:50 [wbailer]
chris: api should be independent from how ontology is modelled
17:34:08 [wbailer]
veronique: can it be independent (property vs class)
17:34:18 [wbailer]
chris: api will access values of core properties
17:34:28 [wbailer]
... mapping is taken care of internally
17:34:36 [wbailer]
... for the clients the api should be the same
17:35:09 [wbailer]
... for the 4 propositions it's possible to create compatible apis
17:35:24 [wbailer]
florian: what's the role of the api spec?
17:35:39 [wbailer]
chris: it's a uniform way of accessing a specific set of properties
17:36:24 [wbailer]
florian: not much information in api spec then
17:36:50 [wbailer]
... actual information is in ontology document
17:36:56 [wbailer]
... the two could be merged
17:37:06 [wbailer]
chris: what do you expect that the api should do?
17:37:26 [wbailer]
florian: two documents should be merged
17:38:09 [wbailer]
chris: api should define interface, implementation can be different
17:38:19 [wbailer]
... needs to conform to ontology definition
17:38:30 [wbailer]
... no matter how the mappings are implemented
17:38:42 [wbailer]
florian: give guidelines for implementations
17:39:18 [wbailer]
wbailer: our implementations will be available as example
17:39:35 [wbailer]
florian: could be added to api doc
17:39:57 [wbailer]
joakim: let's go through the four proposals
17:40:14 [wbailer]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:40:14 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate wbailer
17:40:59 [wbailer]
chris: the different proposals could be implementation provided with rec
17:41:14 [wbailer]
veronique: agree to go with multiple options
17:41:26 [wbailer]
... only worried that apis could not be compatible
17:42:14 [wbailer]
chris: implementation approaches do not need to be described, thinks that felix shares that view
17:42:29 [wbailer]
chris: not sure how to make ontology document then specific enough
17:43:19 [wbailer]
... implementations should be published, not sure where
17:43:34 [wbailer]
veronique: implementations should be in the document
17:43:52 [wbailer]
chris: in other recs, they add a list of possible recommendations, not in the rec
17:44:10 [wbailer]
... there needs to be sufficient documentation on the implementations
17:44:24 [wbailer]
veronqiue: reader needs concrete examples
17:45:16 [florian]
+1 @ Vero
17:45:24 [wbailer]
joakim: charter says we have 2 recommendations
17:45:46 [wbailer]
... we could keep them separate, but publish them synchronously
17:46:16 [wbailer]
veronique: there is also the issue of a separate document on implementations
17:46:35 [wbailer]
joakim: as ontology is a rec, we need to discuss how to test it
17:46:44 [wbailer]
... to be discussed with team conteact
17:46:51 [wbailer]
17:47:16 [wbailer]
wonsuk: not clear how to do that for the ontology, look at how other groups handle similar issues
17:47:53 [wbailer]
veronique: we have 5 different implementations of ontology
17:48:30 [wbailer]
wonsuk: we have to decide if we just provide the core properties, or also design of ontology
17:48:40 [wbailer]
... not sure what is appropriate for recommendation
17:49:28 [wbailer]
... if we only provide core properties, mapping scheme is moved to implementation part
17:50:06 [wbailer]
if we describe mapping more concretely, we need to elaborate ontology document to describe an approach that fits for many people
17:50:34 [wbailer]
wonsuk: deciding for a certain scheme will raise discussions about approach
17:51:09 [wbailer]
chris: wonsuk, do you mean a concrete serialisation by mapping scheme?
17:51:21 [wbailer]
wonsuk: a concrete one
17:51:31 [wbailer]
... there could be additional formats not considered
17:51:39 [wbailer]
... people may want to add other formats
17:52:32 [wbailer]
joakim: felix was in favour of having no formal mapping in the rec
17:52:54 [wbailer]
... the formal description could be to explain in make it clear, but not normative
17:53:07 [wbailer]
... as an additional layer of conformance
17:53:36 [wbailer]
joakim: let's go through the approaches in the paper
17:53:53 [wbailer]
veronique: we seem to agree that several ones are possible
17:54:19 [wbailer]
veronique: approach based on skos
17:54:30 [wbailer]
... use skos for mapping between properties
17:54:43 [wbailer]
... issue for many people, should be discussed on skos list
17:54:54 [wbailer]
joakim: does it define data types?
17:55:20 [wbailer]
veronique: assumes what is mapped are skos concepts, so it's typed in a sense
17:55:34 [wbailer]
... less formal than owl equivalence
17:56:28 [wbailer]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:56:36 [wbailer]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:56:36 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate wbailer
17:57:07 [wbailer]
joakim: do we need inference?
17:57:29 [wbailer]
florian: eg map dimension to width/height
17:57:35 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #mediaann
17:58:01 [wbailer]
veronique: why is spatial dimension in one property?
18:01:02 [wbailer]
there are pros and cons for having it one or two properties
18:01:22 [wbailer]
chris: mapping using owl and swrl
18:01:36 [wbailer]
... properties are modelled as classes
18:01:50 [wbailer]
... it's ontology engineering on metadata format
18:02:05 [wbailer]
veronique: similar to proposal in event model
18:02:29 [wbailer]
chris: modelling properties and schemes, but approach similar to event model
18:02:52 [wbailer]
... model as classes, use equivalentProperty, equivalentClass
18:03:06 [wbailer]
... rules need for data type conversion
18:05:54 [florian]
werner: introduces his approach using a format independent ontology
18:07:51 [florian]
...this approach my have drawbacks with levels of media fragments (discovered while implementing, not part of the paper)
18:08:24 [wbailer]
veronique: event model might be useful fot mapping fragments
18:08:40 [wbailer]
wonsuk: approach: mapping with buil-in properties
18:08:46 [wbailer]
18:09:06 [wbailer]
... describe properties in 2 standards to be ampped
18:09:19 [wbailer]
18:09:55 [wbailer]
... relation classes modelling type of relation, data types
18:10:22 [wbailer]
... general approach for mapping between media ontology and each format
18:10:45 [wbailer]
... target of mapping described by XPath for XML based formats
18:11:05 [wbailer]
... for EXIF or ID3, the mapping class contains identifier
18:11:57 [wbailer]
... when metadata property is encountered, application applies information in mapping class
18:12:25 [wbailer]
... can access information in input file
18:12:47 [wbailer]
veronique: should be represented as ontology defining the mapping, and rules
18:13:08 [wbailer]
... representation is awkward now with too many blank notes
18:13:26 [wbailer]
... interesting idea, but implementation needs improvement
18:14:57 [wbailer]
veronique: event based model seems to be generalisation of chris' approach
18:15:18 [wbailer]
... metadata is event, that has author, start/end date, place, ...
18:15:38 [wbailer]
... link to representation of content, can be linked to other metadata of the event
18:16:09 [wbailer]
... technical properties can be attached
18:16:31 [wbailer]
... people are working on spatial and technical reasoning on event models
18:16:44 [wbailer]
... beneficial to relate to generic concepts
18:17:27 [wbailer]
chris: reason for representing properties as concepts
18:17:46 [wbailer]
veronique: link properties to subclasses of event model
18:18:01 [wbailer]
joakim: created movie ontology
18:18:11 [wbailer]
... ingested data from imdb, dbpedia
18:18:40 [wbailer]
... many advantages for querying, inference
18:18:49 [wbailer]
... could solve problems for us
18:19:02 [wbailer]
... concepts get natural grouping
18:19:26 [wbailer]
veronique: eg person has natural mapping, no need to care about structure of names
18:19:45 [wbailer]
... no natural mapping for some properties, might need extensions
18:19:57 [wbailer]
joakim: do we have a generic ontology?
18:20:11 [wbailer]
veronique: different event models have been proposed
18:20:20 [wbailer]
... link between different models
18:20:55 [wbailer]
joakim: would we define generic one and link our properties?
18:21:59 [florian]
18:23:20 [wbailer]
[coffee break]
18:23:22 [wbailer]
RRSAgent, make logs public
18:23:30 [wbailer]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:23:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate wbailer
18:50:50 [florian]
florian has joined #mediaann
18:55:33 [Daniel]
19:02:21 [wbailer]
topic: improvement of use case document
19:02:25 [wonsuk]
19:04:19 [joakim]
scribe: Joakim
19:04:20 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #mediaann
19:04:54 [joakim]
Veronique: we can send an email to the group if should define a generic ontology
19:08:18 [joakim]
Chris: how should we define the mappings in the ontology document?
19:09:22 [Daniel]
action: Veronique to send an email to the group to define an implementation approach of ontology with four suggested approaches
19:09:23 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Veronique
19:10:04 [joakim]
Werner: also have to maintain the mappings
19:10:46 [Daniel]
action: joakim to ask Veronique to send an email to the group to define an implementation approach of ontology with four suggested approaches
19:10:46 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-168 - Ask Veronique to send an email to the group to define an implementation approach of ontology with four suggested approaches [on Joakim Söderberg - due 2009-11-12].
19:11:19 [Kangchan]
Kangchan has joined #mediaann
19:13:03 [joakim]
Vernoniqu will try to update the mapping table with additional properties
19:14:45 [joakim]
Chris: If we include generic concepts in the document we do more than we set out for
19:16:06 [joakim]
we should have the mapping to generic concepts as a slice of the recommendation
19:16:17 [florian]
19:16:37 [Daniel]
Joakim: why we should go generic concept ?
19:17:38 [Daniel]
a separated implementation document seems good to us by several participants
19:20:06 [Daniel]
Primer docs would be good place for having the illustration of generic concept and something like those texts if allowed
19:22:55 [Daniel]
ext in Ontology docs Abstract needs to be elaborated
19:24:07 [Daniel]
19:25:00 [Daniel]
briefly going through the link above
19:26:46 [wbailer]
ACTION: vmalaise to update text on in scope formats in ontology doc (formats not in mapping table)
19:26:46 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - vmalaise
19:27:13 [wbailer]
ACTION: veronique to update text on in scope formats in ontology doc (formats not in mapping table)
19:27:13 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - veronique
19:29:53 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #mediaann
19:31:47 [veroniqueM]
veroniqueM has joined #mediaann
19:32:33 [wbailer]
action: wonsuk to update 4.1.1 of ontology doc (put text on voring etc there)
19:32:34 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-170 - Update 4.1.1 of ontology doc (put text on voring etc there) [on WonSuk Lee - due 2009-11-12].
19:33:20 [wbailer]
action: dave to improve description of properties (together with veronique)
19:33:20 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - dave
19:33:34 [wbailer]
action: dsinger to improve description of properties (together with veronique)
19:33:34 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - dsinger
19:40:36 [wbailer]
action: veroniqueM to rewrite intro to be clear on what we mean by ontology
19:40:36 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - veroniqueM
19:43:51 [Daniel]
19:44:43 [Chris]
topic nr 10 can be removed
19:45:26 [Daniel]
new types are added in
19:48:54 [Daniel]
thierry added new types into the link according to stockholm meeting, but mapping table is not updated yet. Editors should review mapping table again
19:50:52 [wbailer]
action: daniel to chase mapping table editors to restructure (following summary table) and update their tables
19:50:52 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - daniel
19:50:56 [wonsuk]
19:51:34 [Chris]
this is related to topic nr 12 of the Ontology improvements
19:52:33 [Daniel]
Daniel will contact each corresponding editor (due is 1st Dec)
19:58:06 [Daniel]
Data type in summary of mapping table as well as ontology docs will be elaborated later on
20:01:03 [Daniel]
topic: loss of semantics: action item to Veronique to address that
20:06:41 [Daniel]
Topic: Missing: Syntactic and semantic mapping, needs to be elaborated. Action Item to Felix
20:07:18 [wbailer]
action: felix to define data type mappings as soon as the data types for the formats are defined
20:07:18 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-175 - Define data type mappings as soon as the data types for the formats are defined [on Felix Sasaki - due 2009-11-12].
20:07:29 [Daniel]
Topic: Datatypes of properties is dropped and be part of #13
20:10:11 [Chris]
item nr 19 is related to role types
20:10:14 [Chris]
see wiki:
20:10:31 [Daniel]
Topic: Defining types for properties,
20:18:52 [Daniel]
elements that contain type/value pairs, such as contributor, title (album, song, etc), location (recording, depicted, etc), date (create, publishing, etc) and more
20:20:43 [Daniel]
dentifier: UMID, EASN, rating: review rating, MPAA, personal rating, collection: album, personal, my favorites,
20:21:01 [Daniel]
e.g., Identifier: UMID, EASN, ating: review rating, MPAA, personal rating, collection: album, personal, my favorites,
20:23:14 [Daniel]
targetAudience: Age group, geographical
20:59:28 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #mediaann
21:00:50 [Daniel]
rrsagent, draft minutes
21:00:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Daniel
21:06:45 [florian]
florian has joined #mediaann
21:10:53 [wbailer]
wbailer has joined #mediaann
21:11:17 [wbailer]
wbailer has joined #mediaann
21:13:00 [vmalais]
vmalais has joined #mediaann
21:13:22 [vmalais]
joakim: wrap up of the previous discussions
21:14:30 [Daniel]
Daniel has joined #mediaann
21:14:35 [vmalais]
werner: we could make a separate page to describe the sub-properties for the core properties of the media ontology
21:15:11 [vmalais]
... we could think of a wiki approach to define the relevant subproperties
21:15:59 [vmalais]
joakim: we started with the roles and relations, checked from EBU schemas
21:16:47 [vmalais]
joakim: should be hierarchical, we culd have subproperties per media type
21:18:37 [vmalais]
joakim: the list was elaborated from EBU and all media guide
21:21:49 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #mediaann
21:26:14 [vmalais]
jean-pierre evain: EBU has made mappings between lots of schemas, we can benefit from these mappings
21:26:25 [Kangchan]
Kangchan has joined #mediaann
21:26:58 [vmalais]
joakim: we need a method to select the relevant subproperties, the group we benefit from your experience to choose the most relevant ones
21:27:40 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #mediaann
21:28:24 [vmalais]
doug: I wrote a metadata schema, I am interested in yur selection of properties
21:29:40 [vmalais]
joakim: we need sub-properties for our core properties, I made a short list for roles, relations, Jean-Pierre Evain is from EBU, he worked on the same topic, we would like to benefit from his experience
21:31:12 [vmalais]
Jean-Pierre Evain: in the schemas I made the mappings for, it is not really necessary to have sub-properties
21:34:52 [vmalais]
Jean-Pierre Evain: a possibility is to add the type information to the property name
21:35:16 [vmalais]
... property is title for example and "album" is the type
21:35:33 [vmalais]
... instead of making long lists of subproperties, because this will not be exhaustive
21:36:03 [vmalais]
Werner: agreed that we will not be exhaustive, but we would like to define a set of relevant subproperties
21:41:26 [vmalais]
Doug: let's try to clarify a terminological problem
21:44:15 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #mediaann
21:48:37 [vmalais]
Jean-Pierre Evain: "type" is a common practice to define a list of subproperties
21:50:15 [vmalais]
... if the ontology would be in RDF I would go for subproperties, but as it is not, the notion of type is more relevant
21:52:07 [vmalais]
... now it is more a list of properties and mappings, like Dublin Core, you run into the same problems: the more subproperties you make, the harder it will be for other people to map to
21:52:34 [vmalais]
chris: my probem is that if we don't do the subproperties, we can't define mappings between them
21:54:20 [vmalais]
Jean-Pierre Evain: I can accept the selection of the core properties, at the high level where they are, but it is much less acceptable at a greater level of specificity in the properties
21:54:42 [vmalais]
i.e. ok on the "title" level, but not on the "album title" level
21:55:59 [vmalais]
doug: I made maxim, a simple specification, for a webapp author the extract information from a metadata file for video
21:56:19 [vmalais]
... the case I was interested in was to extract metadata
21:56:57 [vmalais]
Jean-Pierre: if you want to extract as many information as possible, then the level of "title" is more relevant, isnt't it
21:57:15 [vmalais]
... you can make filetrs later if you get different types of titles
21:58:55 [florian]
Veronique: we are not closing doors with defining subproperties
21:59:11 [florian]
Jean-Pierre: ...but you are loosing semantics
21:59:44 [florian]
Veronique: want to give the possibility to specialyse th search by subproperties
22:02:11 [florian]
Jean-Pierre: information will be lost, only with the mapping the information will be saved
22:02:26 [florian] depends what you are mapping
22:02:55 [florian]
Werner: filtering would require a unique identifier
22:03:10 [florian]
... that?s way we try to define a small set
22:04:04 [florian]
Doug: a user should be able to use this set everywhere
22:07:24 [florian]
...a certain functional core set with a mechanism for extension is what it should be
22:10:07 [florian]
Daniel: please discuss further topics offline Doug and Jean-Pierre
22:10:24 [florian]
Topic: Milstones of the MAWG
22:10:40 [florian]
Daniel: we are a little bit delayed
22:11:19 [florian]
...use case and requirements doc needs no further work
22:11:45 [florian]
...ontology and api document should be LC in March 2010
22:11:55 [florian]
...also next F2F will be in March 2010
22:12:35 [florian] for implementation should be May 2010 in order to move to PR and Rec
22:13:46 [florian]
Doug: this timeline is still in time
22:14:41 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #mediaann
22:14:50 [florian]
...the documents must be precisely
22:15:20 [florian]
...the tests should only reflect the recommendation, so tests should be build as far as possible
22:15:49 [florian]
...avoid should and may
22:16:30 [florian]
Doug: open issues are the test suites
22:16:46 [florian]
s/Doug: open/Daniel: open
22:17:09 [florian]
Doug: you need to have 2 implementations
22:18:03 [florian]
Doug: one test could be "this five formats can be mapped to the ontology"
22:19:35 [florian]
Daniel: do we need to publish the Primer?
22:20:03 [florian]
Phillippe: it would be nice to have...not a req
22:20:22 [florian] would be only a note
22:21:09 [florian]
Doug: if the rec should be used, a primer is very important
22:21:21 [florian] can get the primer perhaps by the help of the community
22:22:07 [florian]
Joakim: how to concretize our work?
22:22:36 [florian]
Doug: you should avoid optional things
22:23:05 [florian]
Joakim: is there an example fot this?
22:23:11 [florian]
Doug: Perhaps in SVG
22:24:30 [florian]
s/fot this/for this
22:25:13 [joakim]
22:25:36 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #mediaann
22:25:42 [shepazu]
22:26:56 [florian]
Phillippe: you can also look at the security documents
22:28:02 [florian]
22:28:34 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #mediaann
22:29:26 [florian]
Veronique: if we have several serialisations of the ontology, we could put it in the ontology document
22:31:02 [florian]
Doug&Phillippe: go to CR before the group charter ends
22:33:36 [florian]
...then the time will be extended
22:33:50 [florian]
...but you will get last call comments
22:34:23 [florian]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
22:34:23 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate florian
22:35:10 [florian]
Joakim: major argument will be "why not use Dublin Core"
22:35:12 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #mediaann
22:35:18 [florian]
...but we have a answer to that
22:39:08 [florian]
Doug: you have to get more precise in the API, give examples
22:39:44 [florian]
Chris: it?s up to the implementation, how it accesses the metadata
22:40:44 [florian]
Doug: there are common ways to get e.g. the MIME type
22:41:06 [florian]
... implementation may also query more sources
22:41:20 [florian] should not be seen as a restriction
22:41:51 [florian]
Chris: not in scope, where the metadata is stored
22:42:59 [florian]
Doug: the format and location of the metadata should not be restricted
22:43:08 [florian]
...should be defined in a own section
22:45:05 [florian]
...should look at formats like RDFa and JSON
22:46:43 [florian] reason not to put it in RDF is just one more semantic web technologie
22:47:15 [florian]
...Primers are good, because they are concentrated examples
22:48:52 [florian]
Veronique: we have different ideas how to implement this ontology
22:48:53 [Daniel]
updated milestone @ TPAC2009:
22:49:07 [florian]
...we want to add examples but don?t know where to put
22:49:31 [florian]
Joakim: (show mapping table) would this "example" column be appropriate?
22:49:43 [florian]
Jean-Pierre: makes not much sense to put this table into RDF
22:50:09 [florian]
Werner: would help if you want to embbed it
22:50:26 [florian]
22:51:05 [florian]
Doug: what are you defining in the API? get property xy (by perhaps filtering)?
22:51:21 [florian]
Chris: API should allow mapping between metadata formats
22:51:30 [florian]
...mappings stored in the ontology
22:53:31 [florian]
Doug: use one interface ala getMetadata(string propertyName)
22:53:44 [florian]
Chris: we also thought about that
22:54:22 [florian]
Werner: this version would be easier for developer
22:54:56 [florian]
Doug: let us assume the ontology is a failure, but the API is a success
22:55:07 [florian]
...make the API general, so it is decoupled
22:59:08 [florian]
(some discussion about pros and cons about the two implementation approaches)
23:02:47 [florian]
Doug: talk to browser vendors, what implementation they would prefer
23:04:21 [florian]
...browser vendors like things like javascript prototyping
23:07:01 [florian]
...can provide the contact to such people
23:07:58 [florian]
...return types should be an array
23:08:20 [florian]
...each object in it should be dynamicly typed
23:11:50 [florian] should be able to filter on e.g. date
23:14:27 [florian]
Doug will formulate some important aspects via email
23:16:08 [florian]
Jean-Pierre: please inform us about the context how people would use/implement the API
23:17:40 [florian]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
23:17:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate florian
23:18:10 [florian]
scribe florian
23:18:13 [florian]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
23:18:13 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate florian
23:18:44 [florian]
scribe: florian
23:18:46 [florian]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
23:18:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate florian
23:43:52 [florian]
florian has joined #mediaann
23:52:21 [Chris]
scribe: Chris
23:52:30 [florian]
florian has joined #mediaann
23:53:01 [Chris]
Joakim: where is the API located?
23:53:19 [Chris]
Joakim: 1. in the Web browser
23:53:43 [Chris]
Joakim: 2. at the web server (backend)
23:54:00 [Chris]
Joakim: 3. Other?
23:54:36 [Chris]
Werner: different possibilities
23:54:59 [Chris]
Werner: metadata is not necesarily at same location as api
23:55:53 [Chris]
Werner: metadata could be separate or included in the media resource
23:56:19 [florian]
scribe: Chris
23:56:20 [Chris]
... it shouldn't matter where the metadata is
23:58:42 [Chris]
Joakim: should we redesign the API based on Doug's comments?
23:58:58 [Chris]
Florian: we should ask feedback from the browser implementors