W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > April 2009

Re: draft for "Canonical Processes" Use Case and updates to the UC and Req document

From: Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:34:38 +0200
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Message-Id: <E59DA010-784B-4A94-8D40-1D75E6E46DD0@few.vu.nl>
To: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Hello Felix,

I could probably come up with an example, I could also borrow the one  
developped by Raphael at the workshop of the SAMT conference, if this  
could be authorised :)
The problem is not so much of passing on metadata as such, it is that  
the metadata are encoded in different formats that are not dealt with  
in the other processes, although some properties might be interesting  
to propagate: some keywords or tags, creating date etc can be assigned  
at different moments in the life cycle, but expressed in different  
metadata schemas. Which is the part where the Ontology could have a  
role to play. If I understood correctly, of course :)

Best,
Véronique


On Apr 2, 2009, at 4:27 PM, Felix Sasaki wrote:

> Hello Veronique,
>
> the text looks good to me, but I have two questions: Do you have an  
> example of a property which specifically would help for the  
> "Canonical Processes" use case? Also, is the problem not an issue of  
> information management in the media life cycle, and has to be solved  
> in that area, at least in addition to the ontology?
>
> Felix
>
> 2009/4/2 Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
> Hi everyone!
>
> Following my Action Item, here is a draft of a Use case that would  
> correspond to the "canonical processes" applied to a media document,  
> as discussed in the last teleconference (). All comments are welcome!
>
> I also updated the current Use Case and Requirement document  
> according to the list's comments and reactions.
>
> Best regards,
> Véronique
>
> Title: Canonical Processes Use Case
>
> Summary: The life cycle of a media document undergoes different  
> processes, which have all different canonical metadata properties  
> and schemas. It is not trivial to pass on valuable metadata,  
> generated during one process, to the next process. The Media  
> Ontology could enhance the transmission of metadata in this chain  
> that has been identified as the "Canonical Processes" [1]
>
> Related Requirements:
> Requirement r01: Providing methods for getting structured or  
> unstructured metadata out of media objects in different formats
> Requirement r05: Providing the ontology as a simple set of properties
>
> Description / Example:
> As described in [1]:
> "Creating compelling multimedia presentations is a complex
> task. It involves the capture of media assets, then editing
> and authoring these into one or more final presentations.
> Tools tend to concentrate on a single aspect to reduce the
> complexity of the interface. While these tools are tailored to
> support a specific task, very often there is no consideration
> for input requirements for the next tool down the line. Each
> tool has the potential for adding semantic annotations to the
> media asset, describing relevant aspects of the asset and why
> it is being used for a particular purpose. These annotations
> need to be included in the information handed on to the
> next tool."
> The Media Ontology would help the information transfer or access  
> between these different processes.
>
> [1] Lynda Hardman. Canonical Processes of Media Production. In  
> Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Multimedia for Human  
> Communication - From Capture to Convey (MHC 05), November 11, 2005.
>
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 14:36:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 2 April 2009 14:36:14 GMT