[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [help-GIFT] Re: Region query for MRML/GIFT

From: Pruet Boonma
Subject: Re: [help-GIFT] Re: Region query for MRML/GIFT
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 01:44:27 +1100
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.27i


Thanks for comments and suggetion.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 03:28:36PM +0100, Wolfgang Mueller wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 February 2002 14:07, you wrote:
<-- cut -->
> Ok this works now. 
> Yes, this looks almost OK, however, at some points I don't share your opinion.
> As some kind of "bottomline" I would like to keep in mind that the goal is to 
> communicate with as many clients as possible, feature-rich and very slim 
> clients alike. Your extension will be nice, but at the current state, it will 
> hide data from more clients and servers than necessary.

I agree that it should be hide if the clients or servers don't
understand it. So we need some ways that both side can tell each other
that they can understand segment or not.
> Going into detail, already at the first step of the query you wrap things up 
> into your user-segment-query tag. This is unneccessary, as you are 
> *expecting* some segments, you are not providing them. By choosing and 
> configuring the algorithm, the server should already know all by itself that 
> it is supposed to provide some segments along with the query result.

Sorry, I belive that I don't agree with you in this case. The information,
I mean the segment data, should be sent if users request it. For example,
a user requests 20 images and he needs segment data for only 1 image. Why we
have to send segment data for all image ? It should be very ineffective
if the segment data is very big, such as free-form segment.

So I think that it is better to devide the query step into two stages,
query image list and query segment for request image. Therefore, the
clients that don't understand the segment information will not go
further into the second stage.

> Same thing later, if sending some multi-segment-query, I would rather use the 
> plain user-relevance list, with some reasonable global values for servers 
> that do not understand segment queries, and some additional segment-related 
> values that are not understood by all servers. 

I'm not sure what do you mean, could you please give me some example ?

Anyway, I think that, from the get-algorithm/get-collection stage, the
client already know whatever the server supports segment. So the client
should not send any segment to the server which not support segment.

> The same, make your segment descriptions that are sent as result, children of 
> query-result-element. Otherwise, normal QBE clients like Snake charmer won't 
> see a single result. However, the segmentation info is rather an extension to 
> the image and not the image itself.

This one will not happend becuase that kind of client will not request
<query-step> with query-type="segmented" as I proposed.

> What I find is really missing is the possibility to treat segments that have 
> not been transmitted by the server (i.e. have the user draw the segments). I 
> guess this will be easy to add to the MRML, and more difficult on the server 
> side.

It is not included in this stage, however I strongly believe that it can
be included in user-relevance-element-list. By the way, I and David
didn't look further into this field yet.
> I hope to have been helpful. Don't hesitate to comment on my comments.
> Cheers,
> Wolfgang


> _______________________________________________
> help-GIFT mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]