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

Re: F2F 3 and call for comments

From: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 10:38:48 +0200
Message-ID: <49FAB518.10906@sti2.at>
To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
CC: Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>, Florian Stegmaier <stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
Dear all,

I am back from my holidays and just browsed through the group's emails
from the previous weeks.

I think that the consolidated list of annotation properties is indeed a
very important outcome of the F2F meeting as a basis for the ontology.

I have a few questions / remarks (apologies if these have been already
discussed and I missed them):

* What is the reason to dismiss the rights annotation property? I think
that the group should not dig into the complexity of rights expressions
but rights are a crucial aspect of any media consumption task and thus
in my opinion the property should be kept, so people are able to point
to a (more comlex) rights expression.

* Regarding the technical metadata properties: I rather support the
position of Jean-Pierre. Having technical metadata properties in there
can blow the list. Imho technical metadata is needed for some use cases,
as already pointed out by Florian. But what does the group think about
the definition of profiles of our ontology for specific usage scenarios
or domains like e.g. SMIL did?

I fully agree to the comments in the thread from Raphael / Werner that
we should slightly adapt the terminology and clearly define the meaning
of the used terms.



Evain, Jean-Pierre schrieb:
> Okay if we put them all then and not only what is of the interest of a
> particular user group.
> JP
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joakim
> Söderberg
> Sent: mardi, 28. avril 2009 13:08
> To: Florian Stegmaier; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: RE: F2F 3 and call for comments
> Hello,
> I think we should keep the technical metadata. They would be required for
> UC "5.4 Access via web client to metadata in heterogeneous formats" and
> "Multimedia adaptation".
> /Joakim 
> Multimedia presentation
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
>> annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Florian Stegmaier
>> Sent: den 28 april 2009 10:11
>> To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: F2F 3 and call for comments
>> 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".
>>>> be found on our Wiki:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/Top_Supported_Tags
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Joakim

Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Tobias Bürger

STI Innsbruck
University of Innsbruck, Austria

Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 08:34:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:34 UTC