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

Re: brief description of IPTC-Photo Metadata and some comments/possible requirements

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:48:17 +0900
Message-ID: <48D0A831.7040603@w3.org>
To: Véronique Malaisé <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org

Just for relating to issues ...

issue 6077, 6079

Véronique Malaisé さんは書きました:
> Sorry about the late fulfillment of my task, I had a writer's blank... 
> and I am not really sure yet whether this document is what was 
> expected, but I made a try and I'm waiting for your comments! I have 
> had a look at the IPTC Standard - Photo Metadata 2008 [1] to draw a 
> set of requirements for a MM description ontology. And I have also a 
> question for the list: do we consider cataloging information too or 
> only "pure content" description?
> The document [1] is issued by the International Press 
> Telecommunications Council and is the result of a larger 
> collaboration; it "specifies metadata properties intended to be used 
> primarily but not exclusively with photos". More specifically, "IPTC 
> Photo Metadata provides data about photographs and the values can be 
> processed by software. Each individual metadata entity is called a 
> property and they are grouped into Administrative, Descriptive and 
> Rights Related properties." These metadata could be applied to 
> describe Multimedia documents too, and some links between different 
> vocabularies are made: the metadata are described in natural language 
> and show possible links with the “G2-Standard” (see [2] for example) 
> and XMP [3] representation format.
> As for the link with different vocabularies: for instance, the Title 
> property aligns with the Dublin Core "Title" element and the 
> properties that have the mention (legacy) should be filled in by 
> keywords from different controlled vocabularies.
> This set of metadata is aimed primarily at journalists, which explains 
> some of the modeling choices. It is, in my opinion, a good starting 
> point (amongst others) for listing mandatory description/metadata 
> items, nevertheless it contains a number of drawbacks for a generic 
> image/multimedia description scheme:
> - Ambiguous modeling decisions: the “Keyword” property is supposed to 
> get a free text value, and not keyword value as expected ("Keywords to 
> express the subject of the content. Keywords may be free text and 
> don't have to be taken from a controlled vocabulary."), whereas the 
> "Subject Code" field has to be filled with controlled vocabulary from 
> the IPTC Subject NewsCodes [4].
> - Redundant (and thus ambiguous) modeling decisions: the metadata set 
> contains a Title, Header, Caption field that all describe the content 
> of the image, but that should/can all be different: it is hard to make 
> the distinction between these if you are not one of the expert users 
> the Specification is aiming at. In a generic multimedia annotation 
> ontology, we could make a selection between these and decide to align 
> either with all of these fields (and find a way to define their 
> semantics precisely), but most likely only with one subset.
> - Lack of relationships between the fields: there are some content 
> description fields like Events, Location, Person, Object or Artwork 
> Shown on the image, but one image, and moreover one Multimedia 
> document, contains often more than one event, person, location; 
> multiple Events etc can be specified with this description model, but 
> to get satisfactory answers to precise queries, or to be able to 
> disambiguate between different documents (particularly relevant in 
> large homogeneous document collections), a formal relationship between 
> the event, person and location has to be made. For example if a 
> picture is about two Heads of State shaking hands at a Summit, 
> attended by other Heads of State, an explicit relationship has to be 
> made between the ones who are shaking hands and the event “shaking 
> hands”.
> The StructuredAnnotation of MPEG-7 (see [5] and example below) enables 
> to explicit such a relationship; more genrally, I think that an 
> annotation system based on graphs explicating relationships between 
> the Who/What/When/Where/Why/How would improve browsing and searching 
> in Multimedia documents collections.
> Example of StructuredAnnotation, taken from [5].
> <StructuredAnnotation>
> <Who>
> <Name xml:lang="en">Zinedine Zidane</Name>
> </Who>
> <WhatAction>
> <Name xml:lang="en">Zinedine Zidane scoring against England.</Name>
> </WhatAction>
> </StructuredAnnotation>
> The NewsML ontology [6], associated with Named Graphs, could also 
> enable this type of links. I think that the possibility of such graphs 
> should be present in a multimedia annotation schema, to enable as 
> precise annotations as possible; the relationship between the 
> different metadata elements (person/event/location) could be derived 
> automatically in some cases (from text or context in the flow/still 
> image), so having the possibility to integrate this context in an 
> annotation would bring an added value, in my opinion. And I would be 
> very interested to know what you think about this point!
> [1] 
> http://www.iptc.org/std/photometadata/2008/specification/IPTC-PhotoMetadata-2008_2.pdf 
> [2] http://www.newsml.org/pages/
> [3] http://www.adobe.com/products/xmp/
> [4] http://www.iptc.org/NewsCodes/
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/mmsem/XGR-mpeg7/
> [6] http://homepages.cwi.nl/~troncy/research.html
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2008 06:48:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:30 UTC