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

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

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <swlists-040405@champin.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:24:34 +0000
Message-ID: <49103F02.4000707@champin.net>
To: vmalaise@few.vu.nl
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org
I like Véronique's idea. I also think that we should avoid committing
to a specific "instanciation" hierarchy (like the example
idea/work/instance).

A generic "instanciation" (open to a better name) relation should be
provided, which could be refined in different use cases.

Not only would it keep the ontology open to unexpected scenarios, but It
would also allow users to only make the distinctions they wish to do.

E.g.: one might state that monalisa1.jpg is a painting by Leonardo Da
Vinci, while someone else would state that monalisa2.png is a digital
image created by p1, from an analog photo taken by p2, of a painting by
Leonardo Da Vinci...

And the ontology (and hence applications using it) should be able to
cope with both scenarios.

 what do you think?

  Pierre-Antoine Champin


vmalaise@few.vu.nl a écrit :
> Quoting Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>:
> 
> Dear all, 
> 
> I also do think that our ontology should not go in too many details, but allow 
> placeholders for other schemas to fit in: having one generic "creator" 
> property/tag, and giving the possibility to scheme that are more refined to 
> extend this single property/tag into "conceptual creator" and "concrete 
> realisator of the piece". On the other hand, if we go for a description model 
> that keeps the distinction between the idea (the idea of a movie for example), a 
> realisation (one adaptation by a director) of the work and instances (a video 
> tape/DVD), it is possible to attach a property/tag of "creator" at all these 
> levels. the seamtic would be the agregation between the level of description 
> (idea/work/instance) and the role (creator).
> But of course, this is just an idea, open to criticism... or approval :)
> What do you think?
> 
> Best,
> Veronique  
> 
>> 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 12:25:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 November 2008 12:25:25 GMT