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: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:56:42 +0900
Message-ID: <ba4134970904020756j4d4059b1p9481b0b280d736b7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>
Cc: Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
Hello Tobias,

2009/4/2 Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>

> 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.


That would be very valuable feedback IMO.

Felix



>
>
> Best,
> Tobias
> >
> > 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
> http://www.sti-innsbruck.at/
>
> tobias.buerger@sti2.at
> __________________________________________________
>
>
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 14:57:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 2 April 2009 14:57:24 GMT