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: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 18:18:04 +0900
Message-ID: <ba4134970904030218s6117f383o374a8d011c4adcf1@mail.gmail.com>
To: nack@uva.nl
Cc: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>, Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
Very interesting, thank you Frank!


2009/4/3 Frank Nack <nack@uva.nl>

> Dear Felix, Veronique, Tobias, all
>>    >     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 :)
>>  The problem is indeed twofolded, what discussion with people in the film
> and TV world showed. We had a few projects where it turned out that
> a)  the amount of people working on a film project during the different
> production phases, i.e. preproduction, production, and postproduction, is
> large. Each of them uses tools they individually best can work with. Most of
> the available tools are often based on incompatible and closed proprietary
> architectures. It is not easy to establish an automatic information flow
> between different tools, or to support the information flow between distinct
> production phases. The net result is little or no intrinsic compatibility
> across systems from different providers, and poor support for broader reuse
> of media content. A simple example: Most camera providers do not support the
> requirements of editing technology.
> The problem for the film production is: the interrelationships between
> different stages within the process (e.g. the influence of personal
> attributes on decisions or the comparing of different solutions) is complex
> and extremely collaborative. The nature of these decisions is important
> because as feedback is collected from many people, it is the progression
> through the various types of reviewers that affects the nature of the work.
> Related to that, one of the big problems is that, due to development in
> rights management, every person who is involved in the production should be
> able to claim rights on the material that was created or manipulated by him
> or her. The problems how that is captured during the production flow is not
> yet addressed.
> b) on the other hand there is also the problem that most production
> companies serve different genres (e.g. drama, news, documentary) and here
> the production activities are different. Commercial dramatic film production
> is typically a highly planned and linear process, while documentary is much
> more iterative with story structure often being very vague until well into
> the editing process. News production is structured for very rapid assembly
> of material from extremely diverse sources. So here the problem is more
> related to the content itself and how the production process is influenced
> by the content to be produced. The set of metadata for each genere will have
> some overlap but there are also difference on where and when this metadata
> is captured and what is actually means.
> So, to me it seems that this use case is an important case to exemplify
> what type of mapping the ontology should be able to address - and it is
> important because it addresses the structural as well as contextual aspects
> of media production. Due to it's complexity it seems to me that there will
> be no implementation for this use case at the end but it can be used as a
> 'virtual' test case to cross-check if what we come up with can be
> potentially used in this environment too.
> Hope that helped a bit.
> Best
>   frank
> PS: Raphael's example is a good one to be used here.
> --
> Dr. Frank Nack
> Human-Computer Studies Group (HCS)
> Institute for Informatics
> University of Amsterdam
> Science Park 107
> 1098 XG Amsterdam The Netherlands
> Tel:   +31 (0)20 525 6377
> Fax:   +31 (0)20 525 7490
> Mobile: +31 (0)6 1810 8902
> Url: http://fnack.wordpress.com/
Received on Friday, 3 April 2009 09:18:41 UTC

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