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: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:53:35 +0200
Message-ID: <49D4D16F.7010303@sti2.at>
To: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
CC: Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
Dear Felix,

Felix Sasaki schrieb:
> Hello Veronique,
> 2009/4/2 Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl
> <mailto:vmalaise@few.vu.nl>>
>     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 :)
> That would be great :)
>     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 :)
> Probably you have - and I do not disagree with you. Nevertheless, from
> a recent event at a the local film studio and discussion with experts
> in the area, I have the impression that in movie industry business
> reality both is an issue - that is, setting up the chain between the
> hundreds or thousands of people in video / movie production, and being
> able to pass properties along the way. Do we have people on this list
> who are in video / movie production and could comment on that?
I am not in the movie production industry but I am working together with
people from Grass Valey in a project and I had a chat with one of them
about exactly this issue. Yes I guess that they are facing these
problems. I could ask the people once again about their opinion and how
the industry deals with that problem.

> Felix
>     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
>>     <mailto: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.

Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Tobias Bürger

STI Innsbruck
University of Innsbruck, Austria

Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 14:51:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:33 UTC