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

RE: Media annotations Working Group telephone conference 2008-11-18

From: Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:42:22 +0100
Message-ID: <4055256AED9D224D9442B19BF1C4C49002E55B18@esealmw118.eemea.ericsson.se>
To: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>

Hello everyone,

I would like to take the opportunity to add another comment that I think is somewhat related to the multi-level description discussion (because sometimes media is encapsulated in Collections/Containers), but from the receiving end. 

I believe that it would be nice if we could help application developers to find out what type of metadata they could obtain; if it is an image, video clip or "simple" text. Dublin Core has a classification scheme for that - DCMIType (http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-type-vocabulary/), e.g. Collection, Image, InteractiveResource, MovingImage, Software, Sound, Text etc. Or we could use MIME types...

Best Regards

-----Original Message-----
From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Silvia Pfeiffer
Sent: den 18 november 2008 07:17
To: Ruben Tous
Cc: Felix Sasaki; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: Media annotations Working Group telephone conference 2008-11-18

Hi Ruben, all,

I found that document very interesting.

I have a further concern that you may want to consider when looking at
hierarchical description schemes or flat ones.

I believe the decision depends on what viewpoint you have towards annotations.

Both for XMP and DC, the descriptions were written in flat structures
because they have to be able to be embedded into a data stream and
easily extractable. Name-value fields are much easier to handle than
hierarchical structures and are thus easier to expose as an interface
towards something or somebody else. They essentially say "I am this
resource and this is what I know about myself".

The other specifications seem to be built as description schemes for
collections of media resources. Since such descriptions necessarily
stay out of th resources themselves, and since they tend to live in
databases, hierarchical relationships are fairly common and a good way
to avoid data duplication.

So, the main question that I take out of this is: do we want to create
an ontology that can be multiplexed into a video stream (e.g. as a
header file in ID3 and vorbiscomment fashion, or as time-aligned text
in the data section like TimedText or subtitles)? or do we want to
create an ontology that can describe video stream collections?

I am mostly interested in the earlier one, but I am not sure where the
group is heading.


On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Ruben Tous <rtous@ac.upc.edu> wrote:
> Hi all,
> as promised in the last telco, and with the help of Victor and Jaime, I have
> created a page for the multi-level description review:
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/MultilevelDescriptionReview
> Best regards,
> Ruben
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>
> To: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 1:41 PM
> Subject: Media annotations Working Group telephone conference 2008-11-18
>> Hi all,
>> just as a reminder, we will have a call at 18. November, Tuesday, 13:00
>> UTC.
>> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=11&day=13&year=2008&hour=13&min=00&sec=0&p1=0
>> Agenda will follow in a few hours. We will mainly have a slot to discuss
>> XMP issues, if there are some new ones, new use cases, the API /
>> ontology draft proposal and a general time schedule.
>> Felix
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 10:43:02 UTC

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