I'll scribe

<scribe> scribe: pchampin

administrative

<tmichel> next telecon meeting is the 11th January

joakim: next meeting proposed on 2011-01-11

<joakim> http://www.w3.org/2010/11/30-mediaann-minutes.html

joakim: minutes approved for the last meeting

open action items

close action-269

<trackbot> ACTION-269 Report about "library to extract test cases for JavaScript" at next call closed

joakim: wonsuk, about action 309 ?

<wonsuk> That is not done.

<wonsuk> please keep it open.

<tmichel> wonsuk are you on Zakim ?

close action-309

<trackbot> ACTION-309 Improve markup of nomative/informative, probably with specific class to visualise closed

<wonsuk> no... I will be on the Zakim ;)

joakim: wonsuk, about action 328?

<tmichel> ACTION-328 wonsuk ?

<wonsuk> That was done.

close action-328

<trackbot> ACTION-328 Check if comment 2389 is in the document closed

<tmichel> ACTION-334

<tmichel> leave open

<tmichel> ACTION-337 wonsuk again

joakim: wonsuk, about action 337?

<wonsuk> That has been done.

close action-337

<trackbot> ACTION-337 Check if comment 2405 is in the document closed

joakim: no report on action 343 for Daniel, leave it open
... wonsuk, about action 351 ?

<tmichel> ACTION-348 done

wonsuk: 351 has been done

close action-351

<trackbot> ACTION-351 Change "issuer of classification" to "classification scheme" in Onto and API documents closed

joakim: what about 356?

<msuaref> hi

<tmichel> ACTION-348 NOT done

wonsuk: as I wrote in my e-mail, I missed the point of that action

<stegmai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Dec/0069.html

joakim: I think this was raise by Jean-Pierre at the F2F in Lyon

jean-pierre: we had this discussion about the RDF ontology

joakim: I think the conclusion was that the text should be rewritten to match the RDF representation
... I think that we said that rating should be more precisely defined, to prevent mixing it up with classification

thierry: I think wonsuk and jean-pierre should coordinate to check/improve the text in the ontology document

jean-pierre: for me the text is ok as is

joakim: it seems that the text has been updated according to 351

close action-356

<trackbot> ACTION-356 Make more precise description of rating in ontology closed

florian: action-360 still ongoing

joakim: action-365 is about one particulat issue in LC-2419
... still open
... action-368 is also for me, about ma:compression and ma:format

werner: we had some discussion on the list about that
... the conclusion being: there are two problems with merging them
... 1/ for tracks, you need 'compression', 'format' doesn't make sense for them
... 2/ extended mimetypes are not sufficiently well defined for us to rely on them
... so ma:compression and ma:format were deemed not redundant

joakim: I can write that down in an e-mail and send it on the mailing list
... next action is action 369
... keep it open

<tmichel> ACTION-372 Wonsuk ?

<tmichel> CVS updated. Please close

close action-372

<trackbot> ACTION-372 Upload veronique's version to CVS closed

<chpoppe> Here is the last version of the API doc

<chpoppe> http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-api-1.0/mediaont-api-1.0.html

florian: misunderstood action373, will do it for the next telecon

joakim: next is action 375, to Véronique
... no repporting, we leave it open

<chpoppe> action 374 is done

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 374

joakim: next actions were created at the last telecon because we lacked reviews

florian: 377 is done

<tmichel> close 377

close action-377

<trackbot> ACTION-377 Review LC2393 closed

<chpoppe> you can also close action 374

werner: 378 is done too; some change should be done in the API document
... explaining what "no exception" means

close action-374

<trackbot> ACTION-374 Change createdate to creationdate in the api doc closed

<tmichel> missing text to be added in the API for LC 2395

close action-378

<trackbot> ACTION-378 Review LC 2395 closed

felix: action 380 is done

close action-380

<trackbot> ACTION-380 Review LC 2406 closed

<fsasaki> felix: comment looks good to me

action chris to add missing text in the API document for LC 2395 (about "no exception")

<trackbot> Created ACTION-382 - Add missing text in the API document for LC 2395 (about "no exception") [on Chris Poppe - due 2010-12-28].

changes in the ontology document proposed by the RDF taskforce

jean-pierre: we proposed to add track as a sub-class of fragment
... unless we consider that having a 'number of tracks' is enough

werner: I think the definitions we have is sufficient
... the definition of fragments refers to the Media Fragment definition, which includes track fragments

jean-pierre: fine with me
... next item is about captionning track
... we only have the notion of caption, but not 'sign language'
... suggest to add it as an example
... and we would add it as a subclass of Track in the RDF ontology

<tmichel> I am fine with adding signing ...

felix: one piece of information
... in a language identifier, sign language can be identified

jean-pierre: there are two things: the language and the purpose

felix: sign language is defined just as one kind of language
... so I'm not sure whether we need a distinction here

jean-pierre: at least this should be mentionned in the 'language' definition then

<fsasaki> http://people.w3.org/rishida/utils/subtags/index.php?find=sign+language&submit=Find

werner: a caption track with a sign language as its language would be strange

jean-pierre: there are several options

<fsasaki> see the above link for sign language sub tags, which are "normal" language sub tags

jean-pierre: 1/ the signing is embeded in the video, so there are actually two languages
... 2/ the signing is an external file

<tmichel> ma:language add sign languages

pierre-antoine: think that we should make this explicit in the definition of 'ma:language'

<tmichel> ma:numTracks add signing as example.

action felix to write an addition to the definition of ma:language to mention sign language

<trackbot> Created ACTION-383 - Write an addition to the definition of ma:language to mention sign language [on Felix Sasaki - due 2010-12-28].

jean-pierre: another problem is that we can not express the *purpose* of a captionning track

pierre-antoine: the relation between a media resource and its track could carry this information

werner: agrees that relation could be used; the same issues appears elsewhere

jean-pierre: I'll illustrated this with an example
... e.g. "translation", "audio description"

joakim: it would be good to include them in the ontology document

<msuaref> I also agrees on using the relations (in some way) to this issue

jean-pierre: next point: creationDate is not the most general date property
... and other dates (like "release date") are not really subproperties of *creation* date

joakim: I think we discussed this issue in Barcelona,

<joakim> Do you agree that we should change ma:creationDate to ma:Date?

<chpoppe> I have no objection if the type can be used to specify the exact semantics of the date

joakim: though I don't remember why we settled on creation data

werner: I think we found that creationDate was more specific
... and all our examples were related to creation date

<stegmai> +1 werner

<joakim> +1

werner: we didn't have qualifier at the time, but now that we have, why not make it more general

+1

<tmichel> +1

<chpoppe> so I change creationdate to date in the API doc?

<joakim> Resoultion: change ma:creationDate to ma:date

thierry: this makes action 375 obsolete

close action-375

<trackbot> ACTION-375 Change createdate to creationdate in the ontology doc closed

action wonsuk to change creationDate to date

<trackbot> Created ACTION-384 - Change creationDate to date [on WonSuk Lee - due 2010-12-28].

jean-pierre: next point was about rating values as float
... it is still double in the ontology document

<chpoppe> the ontology document has not been updated

<joakim> Resolution: change ma:creationDate to ma:date

<chpoppe> I think that Veronique has problems with accessing the cvs or something

<chpoppe> in the API it is float

pchampin: the ontology document only uses double

<tmichel> RatingValue should be Double

pchampin: while the API document sometimes uses float, sometimes double
... unless there is a good reason to mix them, I suggest the API sticks to double, just like the ontology document

<chpoppe> the API only uses double for the location

<chpoppe> latitude, longitude and altitude

<chpoppe> I can change the value of the rating to double

<joakim> +1

<tmichel> language and compression will allow string and anyURI values.

action chris to change float to double in the API document

<trackbot> Created ACTION-385 - Change float to double in the API document [on Chris Poppe - due 2010-12-28].

action jean-pierre to change float to double in the RDF ontology

<trackbot> Created ACTION-386 - Change float to double in the RDF ontology [on Jean-Pierre EVAIN - due 2010-12-28].

<joakim> Resolution: use double everywhere

<tmichel> Ontology does not need updates : we keep Double.

jean-pierre: last point: language and compression only allow string as value; we suggest to allow URIs

joakim: sounds like a good idea

pchampin: +1

<joakim> any objections?

<tmichel> +1

<tmichel> I will do it

<tmichel> language and compression will allow string and anyURI values.

<wonsuk> +1

action tmichel to add URIs as allowed values for ma:language and ma:compression

<trackbot> Created ACTION-387 - Add URIs as allowed values for ma:language and ma:compression [on Thierry Michel - due 2010-12-28].

joakim: can everybody stay another 10 minutes?

<msuaref> yes

<tmichel> extending 10 minutes ...

Follow up on Implementation of LC comments

joakim: thierry will go through the mails and see what is still relevant in the comments

thierry: should we try to settle LC 2405 now?

jean-pierre: everything is basically in my comment

<tmichel> thanks JP

joakim: jean-pierre can you propose a text that Wonsuk would add?

<joakim> ping Wonsuk!

<tmichel> WonSUKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK ?

<chpoppe> when making updates to the ontology please use the latest version on the cvs!

<joakim> 1) Introduction Note to implementers, content authors - not really explicit, maybe these roles should be mentioned saying things like "it is expected that implementers will do." ". to the benefit of content providers", etc.

<joakim> problem 2) There is no section 1.1 on the purpose of the specification

<joakim> 3) Section 4.1 core property definitions -> now section 5.1

<joakim> 4) The ma: prefix still appears in the table but since the comment was made Pierre Antoine, while working on the mapping table suggested that the prefix should only be used with the ma-ont namespace in the RDF -> reconsider position?

wonsuk: I'll update the ontology document with respect to these comments

<chpoppe> please first get the latest version of the ontology document from the cvs wonsuk

pchampin: another proposal I made, regarding Ivan Herman's comments, was to remobe the 'ma:' prefix for the 'abstract' ontology
... only the RDF ontology needs a namespace

<joakim> I agree with can remove the prefix in the abstract ontology

<joakim> werner?

<joakim> All agree to remove ma: in the abstract ontology?

<joakim> including the mapping table

<msuaref> i also agree on removing 'ma:' in the ontology document.

pchampin: it can be done automatically, I already spotted all the false positives :)

<joakim> wonsuk, are you ok with removing ma: from the abstract ontology doc?

pchampin: I'll send the recommendatio on the list again

action thierry to remove 'ma:' from the mapping table

<trackbot> Created ACTION-388 - Remove 'ma:' from the mapping table [on Thierry Michel - due 2010-12-28].

action wonsuk to remove 'ma:' from the mapping table

<trackbot> Created ACTION-389 - Remove 'ma:' from the mapping table [on WonSuk Lee - due 2010-12-28].

action wonsuk to remove 'ma:' from the ontology document

<trackbot> Created ACTION-390 - Remove 'ma:' from the ontology document [on WonSuk Lee - due 2010-12-28].

close action-389

<trackbot> ACTION-389 Remove 'ma:' from the mapping table closed

continuation of the group

<joakim> next year!

<joakim> :-)

florian: according to the charter, the group will end in June 2011
... what should we do in the meantime

thierry: it is unlikely that we reach REC by june
... so we will ask for an extension
... but during an extension we can not re-chart the group
... a new charter can be made after the workshop in september

werner: of course, if we don't each REC by june, we should stick to that

thierry: getting an extension is an easy process

<scribe> ... new charter is much more complicated

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: pchampin
Inferring ScribeNick: pchampin

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Chris IPcaller Resoultion aabb aacc aadd aaee chpoppe felix florian fsasaki jean-pierre joakim ma msuaref msuarezf pchampin pierre-antoine stegmai thierry tmichel trackbot wbailer werner wonsuk
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy


WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting


WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 21 Dec 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/12/21-mediaann-minutes.html
People with action items: