W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > November 2008

Re: [new use case suggestion] Use Case - Digital imaging lifecycle

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:55:29 +0900
Message-ID: <49100E01.4080507@w3.org>
To: Víctor Rodríguez Doncel <victorr@ac.upc.edu>
CC: Pierre-Antoine Champin <swlists-040405@champin.net>, Rubén Tous <rtous@ac.upc.edu>, public-media-annotation@w3.org

Hello Victor, all,

I agree that such a distinction is possible. I am not sure if it is 
relevant for our Working Group, since our main task is to provide 
interoperability between metadata formats - to a certain extend. We have 
to make a tradeoff between detailedness of abstraction and complexity. I 
think for the task of interoperability between formats, it would be 
sufficient to not make the distinction you describe. I might be wrong, 
but it would be great to see examples of approaches towards 
interoperability, like the metadata working group one, which prove me 
wrong. This is a chicken and egg problem, but I am worried that we take 
too much on our plate and go too far away from existing pratice.


Víctor Rodríguez Doncel さんは書きました:
> Hello all,
> I think it should be distinguished between the user roles regarding 
> the resource, and the user roles regarding the represented object.
> Thus, the three kind of applications or roles defined by the 
> metadataworkinggroup (creator/changer/consumer) operate on the 
> resource but may not match logically the role regarding the 
> represented object.
> For example, the word "creator" is somewhat ambiguous because it may 
> refer to the role which creates materially the resource, or to the 
> actual artist which conceives an idea. Both "creators" do not 
> necessarily match. Have you thought about it?
> Regards,
> Víctor Rodríguez Doncel
> Felix Sasaki escribió:
>> Pierre-Antoine Champin さんは書きました:
>>> Felix Sasaki a écrit :
>>>> Hello Ruben, all,
>>>> sorry for the late reply. Reading your proposal I think it is 
>>>> interesting for the photo use case. However I remember that we 
>>>> discussed at the f2f meeting about the focus of the Working Group, 
>>>> and most of the people want it to be video, with the possibility to 
>>>> take other use cases into account if their requirements overlap 
>>>> more or less with video.I am a bit worried that your description is 
>>>> too far away from that use case. What do others think?
>>> Although the examples given by Rubén are quite specific to still 
>>> images, it seems to me that a similar kind of concern exist for 
>>> video: video can be digitalized from analog media, captured by 
>>> digital devices or generated; they can be altered in several ways 
>>> (re-encoding, subtitling, montage...).
>> Good point. I think an implementation of this is to  separate actors 
>> or roles like creator, changer and consumer. This is what the 
>> metadata working group deliverable does, see section 2 of
>> http://www.metadataworkinggroup.com/pdf/mwg_guidance.pdf
>> However what you are mentioning and what Ruben describes sounds to me 
>> rather like a requirement than a use case, that is the requirement to 
>> take such roles into account for relating various metadata 
>> vocabularies. What do you think?
>> Felix
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 08:56:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:31 UTC