Edit comment LC-2406 for Media Annotations Working Group

Previous: LC-2419 Next: LC-2395

Comment LC-2406: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; 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:
API:

I find this spec a little confusing, though it's helped by the concrete
examples of use. You are right to identify local/internal and
remote/external sources for metadata, but the API doesn't feel very
Javascripty to me.

I think the approach of so many different specialized typed interfaces
may be too cumbersome for both implementers and authors. I would take a
more combinatorial approach, where the author uses the API to extract
sets of metadata via certain selection criteria, then further filter
those with selection criteria, or iterate through them generically and
programmatically.

It seems that you are considering the case of multiple instances of
orthogonal or even conflicting metadata, possibly in different formats,
being extracted from the same media resource (thus the returnset being
an array), but I couldn't see that explicitly described anywhere.

I realize that these are pretty high-level comments, but I'm happy to
join a telcon sometime to discuss them further, or expand on them via
email. Unless you have specific implementer feedback about these, I
think it might be fruitful to reexamine this approach before the CR phase.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100309/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20100309/

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: Resolution: yes we would like to discuss this further. Joakim to invite Doug to a telecon.[done] Chris to add design consideration in section 2. Doug please make sure you are reviewing the proper CR document ;-) http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20100309/ is not the proper version. The resolution is pending Doug's response.; Resolution: Dear Doug, The Media Annotations Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the API 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 [@@-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/2010Jul/0016.html 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20100608 ----------------------- Resolution of the MAWG: ----------------------- Looking at the document you seem to have revised, according to your URIs in you comment message, [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100309/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20100309/ These documents are not the latest versions of our specifications, and not the versions for the Last Call Review.Please refer to "Last Call Working Drafts transition announcement of the API and Ontology for Media Resource 1.0" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Jun/0050.html The Media Annotations Working Group has done a lot of improvements and changes since, especially on the mediaont-api-1.0-20100309 version, and probably you would find satisfaction in our latest LC documents * http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20100608/ * http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/ We agree that there is always space for improvement, therefore we have added a clarification note on the fact that we consider different values for the properties according to different source formats, languages, subtypes and tracks. Finally we have send to you an invitation to join a MAWG telcon sometime to discuss them further, unfortunately we did not get any response from you.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)