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: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:16:06 +0900
Message-ID: <49128BA6.7080700@w3.org>
To: Rubén Tous <rtous@ac.upc.edu>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org

Hi Ruben,

Rubén Tous さんは書きました:
>
> Dear Werner, all,
>
> thanks to all for your comments. I see a certain consensus regarding 
> the need of a limitation in the complexity of the processing history 
> metadata (Werner, Pierre-Antoine, Felix and Veronique) and I also 
> agree with you because the goal of the group is multimedia metadata 
> interoperability, not modelling. I also see that some of you agree in 
> the need of having at least the possibility (not the obligation as 
> pointed by Pierre-Antoine) to keep some information (Werner talks 
> about the contributors, Veronique and Victor talk about separating 
> idea/work/instance). If you agree, as suggested by Raphaël, I will add 
> a tentative Use Case in the Wiki with a revised version of my initial 
> idea in order to help the discussion.

I think that is a very good idea - including your example below ;)

Felix

> Pierre-Antoine suggested generalizing this issue to any kind of media, 
> but maybe we can keep the use case as is for the discussion and later, 
> if any new requirement arises, generalize the requirement.
>
> Working in the use case a funny example came to my mind. Try to find 
> in your favourite images search engine (e.g. Google Imanges) the image 
> of a tattoo inspired in a famous painting (without using the name of a 
> specific painting).
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ruben
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bailer, Werner" 
> <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
> To: <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>; "Ruben Tous" <rtous@ac.upc.edu>
> Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 5:50 PM
> Subject: AW: [new use case suggestion] Use Case - Digital imaging 
> lifecycle
>
>
>
> Dear Ruben, Veronique, all,
>
> I'm not sure about the inclusion "historic metadata" (actual I would 
> suggest to use the term processing metadata or processing history 
> metadata instead): This information can be quite detailed, specific to 
> tools applied (e.g. settings, parameters), and is quite low-level 
> information.
>
> The set of people/organisations contributing to the creation of the 
> media item (P_Meta uses the term "contributor", as this might involve 
> less creative contributors such as movie producers) is relevant and I 
> support Veronique's proposal. If necessary the type of contribution 
> could be quite fine-grained in a certain application, without 
> hindering other applications to deal with the concept of a generic 
> creator.
>
> Best regards,
> Werner
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org im Auftrag von 
> vmalaise@few.vu.nl
> Gesendet: Di 04.11.2008 11:34
> An: Felix Sasaki
> Cc: Rubén Tous; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Betreff: Re: [new use case suggestion] Use Case - Digital imaging 
> lifecycle
>
>
> 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 ã.ã,"はæ>¸ãã¾ã-ãY:
>> >
>> > 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: "VÃf­ctor RodrÃf­guez Doncel" <victorr@ac.upc.edu>
>> > Cc: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>; "Pierre-Antoine Champin"
>> > <swlists-040405@champin.net>; "RubÃf©n 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 VÃf­ctor RodrÃf­guez 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,
>> >>> VÃf­ctor RodrÃf­guez Doncel
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Felix Sasaki escribiÃf³:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Pierre-Antoine Champin ã.ã,"はæ>¸ãã¾ã-ãY:
>> >>> >> Felix Sasaki a Ãf©crit :
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> 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 RubÃf©n 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 Thursday, 6 November 2008 06:16:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 6 November 2008 06:16:47 GMT