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

Re: Some thoughts on use cases

From: Véronique Malaisé <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:46:23 +0100
Message-ID: <48D8BAEF.8040409@few.vu.nl>
To: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
CC: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>, "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>, public-media-annotation@w3.org

Raphaël Troncy wrote:

>
> Dear all,
>
>>> - "Multi media and semantic web technologies" [issue 6069]: I think 
>>> that
>>> came out of Tobias' introductory mail and describes quite well what 
>>> this
>>> group is supposed to be dealing with, but I think it is too unspecific
>>> to be a use case
>>
>>
>> agree. Probably we should drop this?
>
>
> Agree.
>
>>> - "multimedia adaptation" [issue 6084]: in their mail Erik and Davy
>>> mentioned "region of interest selection" under this heading, which I
>>> consider an interesting aspect (one could maybe label it summarisation
>>> or highlight extraction). This could be related to the 
>>> representation of
>>> search results (e.g. summaries showing aspects of videos relevant to 
>>> the
>>> query) and to the exploration of audiovisual archives.
>>
>>
>> This seems a good way to build a bridge between media annotation and 
>> media fragments. But I am not sure if we should classify this as 
>> something to tackle later, after the first version of the ontology, 
>> and the first version of media fragments. What do people think?
>
>
> Indeed, it seems to be one possible bridge between the two WGs. There 
> are, however, two aspects: the identification of a ROI and the 
> description of the ROI. The former is dealt with the Media Fragment WG 
> while the second falls within the scope of the Media Annotation WG.

Good point! I agree!

Vero

>
>   Raphaël
>
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2008 08:45:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 10 October 2008 05:33:19 GMT