MAWG -- 13 Apr 2010

<joakim> Scriber Volunteeer?

<joakim> Felix?

<scribe> scribe: Felix

<joakim> http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-mediaann-minutes.html

minutes from last minutes approved

next meeting: f2f meeting , no teleconf next week

meeting in Vienna Monday, 26th

action items

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

Joakim describing "reminder" action items

Felix: let's keep my reminder AI open
... ACTION-124

Joakim: David , ACTION-163, David has not much time to spend for the group, probably we need to remove them or move to somebody else

Felix: propose to remove the AI, I think we need general review as much as possible

Chris: propose to remove this

Joakim: ok, remove the AI

close ACTION-163

<trackbot> ACTION-163 Update some of the descriptions to make them more precise and highlight the difference with DC closed

joakim: same for ACTION-171

close ACTION-171

<trackbot> ACTION-171 improve description of properties (together with veronique) closed

Joakim going through other AIs

Wonsuk: ACTION-214 is still open, review from MXM. After we go through LC, we need to recast the review
... from the MXM group.

Joakim: ACTION-218 done

close ACTION-218

<trackbot> ACTION-218 Contact the webapps, geolocation WGs to review the API document closed

Felix: hopefully done this week (ACTION-219)

Wonsuk: talked related to ACTION-224 with Veronique about improving the ontology document, thought that she would attend the call

Joakim: ACTION-226 done

close ACTION-226

<trackbot> ACTION-226 Review mapping table and identify which formats are up to date closed

Chris: ACTION-227 ongoing, will send a mail probably today

Joakim: ACTION-228 update?

Felix: do we still need this, since we are switching to HTML?

joakim: ACTION-229: Daniel has sent a reminder, done

close ACTION-229

<trackbot> ACTION-229 Inform reviewers about the deadline closed

<pchampin> I don't see why we wouln't need it

<pchampin> if I got it correctly,

<pchampin> the point is to automate the generation of test cases

<pchampin> from the text of the specification

ah, ok, sorry, so we need it

Joakim: ACTION-230 is done

close ACTION-230

<trackbot> ACTION-230 Convert the API document to html+script format closed

Great work, Wonsuk!

conversion to html+script

Wonsuk explaining aspects of the conversion and the converted document

discussion on information needed for interface descriptions

Wonsuk: structure of the new and old document is different, but the content is the same

Felix: think so too

reviews

Joakim: Did not see a reply to Silvia's review, anybody working on this?

Wonsuk: have read her mail

Chris: looking at it

<scribe> ACTION: Chris to look at Silvia's comment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/13-mediaann-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-231 - Look at Silvia's comment [on Chris Poppe - due 2010-04-20].

issues before we go to LC

Wonsuk: setter operations
... if we go to LC, I think our goal is just for getter operations, right?
... so we have to decide whether we will have setter operations or not

Joakim: there are technical issues for setters we have not solved, right?

Felix: I think these issues will not be solved during this charter of the Working Group

<pchampin> I agree with Felix

Joakim: there is the problem of information loss we have to cope with
... if we decide to exclude setter ops. in the LC, what impact will that have?

Felix: there is no impact from the W3C process point of view
... if the WG agrees not to do this, that is fine

<pchampin> +1 for checking the impact of setters against the use cases

Felix: (speaking personally, you might want to confirm with Thierry)

joakim: checking the impact of setters against the use cases might be good

<pchampin> you can action me

<scribe> ACTION: pchampin to check the impact on use cases of excluding setter operations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/13-mediaann-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-232 - Check the impact on use cases of excluding setter operations [on Pierre-Antoine Champin - due 2010-04-20].

ontology

joakim: who is working on ontology review

wonsuk: veronique is working on that

joakim: how about setting a deadline for updating the mapping table? If there is no update, we exclude the format from the spec
... e.g. 4th of May

Wonsuk: we have to make a decision for the mapping table as well
... we have to decide for LC what to include and what to exclude for mapping table
... we have to set final dates for updating mapping table. After that we decide what to include in the ontology document.

<joakim> shall we make it 20/4?

Felix: fine by me

Wonsuk: agree
... Silvia proposed OGG format, we have to decide whether we want to add that to the mapping table
... Silvia is an expert in that area, so I think we can believe her

From Silvia: "I checked your list of possible additional elements in comparison with what is available for Ogg through Vorbiscomment or Skeleton and these are some that you don't seem to have considered yet: ..."

scribe: CONTACT and ENCODER

(from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Apr/0008.html )

Silvias mapping table is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Apr/att-0008/OggMetadata.html

<scribe> ACTION: Thierry to add mapping table for OGG (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Apr/att-0008/OggMetadata.html ) to the mapping table [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/13-mediaann-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-233 - Add mapping table for OGG (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Apr/att-0008/OggMetadata.html ) to the mapping table [on Thierry Michel - due 2010-04-20].

Joakim: mapping for XMP?

Felix: I am working on that
... again hopefully done this week

test suite progress

Joakim: Chris is working on the example, will hear about it at the f2f meeting

RDF taskforce

<pchampin> next call is tomorrow

- DRAFT -

MAWG

13 Apr 2010

Attendees

Contents