Edit comment LC-2398 for Media Annotations Working Group

Quick access to LC-2389 LC-2393 LC-2398 LC-2403 LC-2404 LC-2405 LC-2411 LC-2417 LC-2418

Comment LC-2398

Comment Shortname:

Commenter: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <jmcf@tid.es>

Message-id:

Section of the document concerned:

[Free text description]Document as a wholeOntology for Media Resource 1.0 /**/ /**/ /* added fo... Ontology for Media Resource 1.0 W3C Working Draft 08 June 2010 Abstract Status of this Document Table of Contents Appendices 1 Introduction 1.1 Formats in scope 1.2 Formats out of scope 2 Terminology Definition Definition Definition Definition Definition 3 Property value type definitions 3.1 URI 3.2 String 3.3 Integer 3.4 Float 3.5 Date 4 Property definitions 4.1 Core property definitions 4.1.1 Namespace of core property definitions: http://www.w3.org/ns/ma-ont 4.1.2 Description of the approach followed for the property definitions 4.1.3 Core properties 4.2 Property mapping table 4.2.1 Rationale regarding the mapping table 4.2.1.1 Semantic Level Mappings 4.2.1.2 Syntactic Level Mappings 4.2.1.3 Mapping expression 4.2.2 The mapping table 4.2.2.1 CableLabs 1.1 4.2.2.2 DIG 4.2.2.3 EBUCore 4.2.2.4 EXIF 4.2.2.5 ID3 4.2.2.6 IPTC 4.2.2.7 LOM 4.2.2.8 MediaRDF 4.2.2.9 MediaRSS 4.2.2.10 METS 4.2.2.11 MPEG7 4.2.2.12 OGG 4.2.2.13 SMTPD 4.2.2.14 TVA 4.2.2.15 TXFeed 4.2.2.16 XMP 4.2.2.17 YouTube 5 Conformance Requirements A References (Normative) B References (Non-Normative) C Acknowledgements (Non-Normative)
or

Refinement of the section concerned:

Status:

open proposal pending resolved_yes resolved_no resolved_partial other assigned to Nobody

Type: substantive editorial typo question general comment undefined

Resolution status:

Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter

Response status:

No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):

Comment:

Is this specification going to be a Rec or a Note?

because if this is going to be a Rec, you might be in trouble with your lightweight approach to mappings

best

Related issues: (space separated ids)

WG Notes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Jun/0075.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Jun/0076.html

Resolution: Dear Jose, The Media Annotations Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Ontlology for Media Resource 1.0 published on 08 June 2010. Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and to send us comments. The Working Group's response to your comment is included below. Please review it carefully and *let us know by email at public-media-annotation@w3.org if you agree with it* or not before deadline date [@@-oct-2010]. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation Track. Thanks, For the Media Annotations Working Group, Thierry Michel, W3C Team Contact 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Jun/0074.html 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/ ----------------- MAWG Resolution: ----------------- As it is mentioned in the Ontology for Media Resource 1.0, Status of this Document section; "The Working Group expects to advance this specification to Recommendation Status". By "our lightweight approach to mappings", I assume that you refer to the lack of formal semantics or of (recommendation of) use of OWL constructs in the document. Our definition of Ontology is equally lightweight: a shared and agreed-upon set of classes and properties. As we do not enforce these classes and properties to be modeled in OWL, we also described the mappings with as few semantic commitments as possible: the mappings can be implemented in XSLT, in Java or whatever language/paradigm a user might be interested in. The mappings are therefore described in simple prose. An RDF version of the Media Ontology is being produced in the Working Group, and an RDF/OWl version of the mappings can also be considered, but formal and strong OWL constructs are very constraining in semantics, and hard to maintain in a consistent manner between vocabularies we have no control over. We therefore decided to describe the mappings, still in prose, but with reference to the SKOS vocabulary rather than in terms of OWL constraints." The mappings tables included in the Ontology specification are established from the Media Ontology's core properties to various multimedia metadata formats. This list of formats is not closed, nor does it pretend to be exhaustive. A future publication of this specification may include additional mappings if a need or use case is established for these new mappings. You will read this statement in the Ontology specification. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/#mapping-table To respond to you further email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Jun/0076.html The current mapping tables will be included in the Media Ontology Recommendation into a normative section. To keep this list of formats open, we also plan to track future mappings in an informative WG Note to allow description of mappings for future formats. These mappings may serve as input for a future version of a Media Ontology Resources specification.

(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)