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

RE: Results of Questionnaire Survey vs. iTunes and QT

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:33:42 +0100
Message-ID: <14AE8514098875488F9FEACD90C747A227781E@gnvasmail1a.gva.ebu.ch>
To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>
Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>, "Daniel Park" <soohongp@gmail.com>
I don't know if we'll have to repeat the process until everyone is happy but
as far as I am concerned I looked at what metadata is going to be available
on the Internet for Internet TV  and Radio (and also possibly in relation to
broadcast through content search engines) for standard non-professional
non-academic users, which is the reason why I didn't push neither EBU's
P-META nor SMPTE RP210 or DMS-1. 

On the other TV-Anytime is related to so many specifications (DVB, ATIS,
DLNA, Open TV Forum, etc.) that I shouldn't (and apparently don't) need to
argue in favour of it, although it is 'complex' in comparison to others, By
the way, what is the definition of complexity here: [one can't read and
understand more than e.g. 15 elements (and too bad for the well known
drawbacks)].

EBUCore is going to be the base of the EUScreen project, which plans to be
the TV and Radio archive portal of Europeana. Then, any value?

MPEG-7. Our use of it is for the time being going to be restricted to new
metadata extraction tools in the production. This may be used later to make
search on 'parts' of content, but we need to show that we can produce this
metadata at reasonable cost and then also publish it in an affordable
manner. This means certainly not a priority one. And even if I am following
what's  happening in mpeg's MXM project, my intention is also to see to
which extent other metadata formats can be adapted to it and not only
mpeg-7. Certainly, mpeg-7 doesn't at all address the description of services
and content is not hanging in the air.

Complexity is less an issue than looking for what described content will be
around and what content will users want to access. I am more concerned about
FRBR and METS as I am wondering if we are all speaking of the same thing.

Jean-Pierre


-----Original Message-----
From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Silvia Pfeiffer
Sent: mardi, 17. mars 2009 22:13
To: Joakim Söderberg
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org; Daniel Park
Subject: Re: Results of Questionnaire Survey vs. iTunes and QT

I don't think the group has decided yet whether a low value in
question 3 is good or bad.
When I filled in the questionnaire, I regarded complexity as a bad thing.
Therefore, a low number in question 3 would mean (at least for some of
us) that it is less relevant to be examined.

We have multiple alternate ways forward from here:
1. have another survey to determine whether complexity in a format is
a preferrable
2. have another survey that does not ask 3 questions, but only one
about which format the group wants to work on - that can then include
iTunesRSS and whatever else was overseen the first time
3. run with the current result, accepting its shortcomings

In my personal opinion, I don't think we need to be afraid to
undertake this survey again. We have identified shortcomings of the
previous approach and should address them. We're not such a large
group that re-running the survey implies a major nuisance.

Just my 2c. :-)

Cheers,
Silvia.

2009/3/18 Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>:
> Dear all,
> The results from the format survey can be summarized as follows (the
lowest sum wins):
>
> Media RSS 2+1+3= 6
> EXIF    1+5+1=  7
> Youtube 4+2+4=  10
> TV-Anytime 5+7+3=15
> ID3 frames 5+4+7=16
> MPEG-7 =8+6+2=  16
> EBUCore 7+3+8=  19
>
> This indicates the groups' average level of interest for each format.
> Unfortunately iTunes ant QT was not added to the survey, since it appeared
later in the mapping table. The chairs of the group regret this and it was
recorded at today's telecom that there is an interest in the group for those
formats as well (see minutes to appear at:
http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-mediaann-minutes.html). These formats are
included in the table for review:
>
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/Format_mapping_review#Refer
ence_Material
>
>
> The purpose of this activity was to achieve a consensus on which formats
to put more attention to during the review and editing process. Hopefully
this collaborative work is of a generic character and can be reused for the
other more complex or specific formats.
>
> Regards
> Joakim
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 21:34:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 March 2009 21:34:40 GMT