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 18:22:33 +0900
Message-ID: <49101459.4040606@w3.org>
To: Rubén Tous <rtous@ac.upc.edu>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org

Hello Ruben, all,

as you said below, in some formats like EXIF there is no separation 
between "historic" and metadata of the resource, and in others there is. 
Again I think we need to decide: how many details do we want to take 
into account? I think for metadata interoperability, the EXIF+others 
approach from the metadata WG is sufficient. What do you think?

Felix


Rubén Tous さんは書きました:
>
> Dear all,
>
> it make sense to me to cover all the three main media categories 
> (video, still images and audio) as a hole or as three separated parts.
>
> However, the intention of my example was not so ambitious, it was just 
> related to what in DIG35 (cited in the PhotoUC) is named "History 
> Metadata":
>
>> From Section 3.2.4 in DIG35 
> (http://xml.coverpages.org/FU-Berlin-DIG35-v10-Sept00.pdf) :
>
> "For example, history may include certain processing steps that have 
> been applied to an image. Another example of a history would be the 
> image creation events including digital capture, exposure of negative 
> or reversal films, creation of prints, transmissive scans of negatives 
> or positive film, or reflective scans of prints. All of this metadata 
> is important for some applications. To permit flexibility in 
> construction of the image history metadata, two alternate 
> representations of the history are permitted"
>
> I think that EXIF and other formats mix this concept with the metadata 
> of the resource (e.g. the Exposure Time field in EXIF) but others like 
> DIG35 or MXF and AAF (Part 15 of 
> http://www.aafassociation.org/html/specs/aafobjectspec-v1.1.pdf talks 
> about Physical Essence) make a clear differentiation.
>
> What about a "History Metadata" Use Case?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ruben
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
> To: "Víctor Rodríguez Doncel" <victorr@ac.upc.edu>
> Cc: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>; "Pierre-Antoine Champin" 
> <swlists-040405@champin.net>; "Rubén Tous" <rtous@ac.upc.edu>; 
> <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [new use case suggestion] Use Case - Digital imaging 
> lifecycle
>
>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> How about this solution: we could group a number of use cases under 
>> the "media"
>> category, as we already have an "audio" use case, and take into 
>> account in the
>> ontology 1.0 only the requirements that overlap with others? The 
>> description of
>> the use case would show what other aspects still need to be taken into
>> consideration when aiming for still images description compatibility.
>>
>> Best,
>> Veronique
>>
>> Quoting Víctor Rodríguez Doncel <victorr@ac.upc.edu>:
>>
>>>
>>> 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 ã.ã,"はæ>¸ãã¾ã-ãY:
>>> >> 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 09:23:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 November 2008 09:23:18 GMT