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

Re: F2F 3 and call for comments

From: Florian Stegmaier <stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:10:40 +0200
Message-Id: <E88DA160-CBEC-4E64-95C0-833FBC753876@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de>
To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Dear all,

I think we should add the elements of the field "descriptive  
metadata", because they are a real improvement. We should discuss,  
whether we need the elements concerning technical metadata. These  
sound quiet interesting, but i´m not sure if they are in the scope of  
our "ontology v1.0" right now - and unfortunately they produce some  
kind of conflicts, as Werner pointed out.

I´m looking forward to today´s telecon.

Best regards,
Florian

Am 27.04.2009 um 16:53 schrieb Bailer, Werner:

> Dear Joakim, all,
>
> I've now looked again at the set of properties we've defined in  
> Barcelona and checked it against sets of metadata properties we have  
> been using in recent project. In general I did not identify really  
> big gaps, however, there are some smaller issues.
>
> * Concerning descriptive metadata, there are just two minor things  
> that could be added either as separate elements with qualifiers to  
> elements we already have in the set:
>
> - tag line is a commonly used property for movies (it could also be  
> a specific kind of title)
>
> - reference to other media representing the content, such as  
> thumbnails, trailers, etc. (could be expressed as a specific type of  
> relation + URI)
>
> * Concerning technical metadata, I found one important and a few  
> nice to have properties missing:
>
> - There is no property to describe the number of tracks (and maybe  
> type of tracks), e.g. which audio channels in a surround setup,  
> several language channels, audio commentary, etc., in future  
> probably also several video channels. The MFWG has defined "track  
> fragments" as a specific type of fragment identifier, so the range  
> of options for this kind of fragments for a content must be known.
>
> - sample type/depth could be useful at least in a limited way, e.g.  
> to express black/white or color, in some application (e.g. medical  
> imaging) a more precise specification could be helpful
>
> - file size/bit rate could be useful for media to be downloaded/ 
> streamed
>
> - I know we excluded temporal sampling rate, but I'm not sure why it  
> should be excluded when spatial sampling rate is included
>
> Best regards,
> Werner
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org
>> [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
>> Joakim Söderberg
>> Sent: Sonntag, 19. April 2009 18:34
>> To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
>> Subject: F2F 3 and call for comments
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> The third F2F was successfully conducted at UPC in Barcelona.
>>
>> Thanks to the hosts and all present participants! You did a
>> really good job and we had some very constructive and discussions.
>>
>>
>>
>> As a result of this meeting we now have a set of "Media
>> Annotations Attributes". It is a very important result since
>> it will be the foundation of our second publication "Media
>> Entity Ontology".
>>
>> THIS IS CALL TO ALL PARTICIPANTS OF MEDIA ANNOTATIONS WG TO
>> PLEASE STUDY THIS TABLE AND PROVIDE COMMENTS! The table can
>> be found on our Wiki:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/Top_Supported_Tags
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Joakim
>>
>>
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2009 08:10:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 28 April 2009 08:10:51 GMT