W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > March 2010

Re: Updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting

From: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 20:26:38 +0100
Message-ID: <ba4134971003011126g55ba2a83k136437a43b3beee6@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bennett.Marks@nokia.com
Cc: werner.bailer@joanneum.at, vmalaise@few.vu.nl, wslee@etri.re.kr, public-media-annotation@w3.org
Thank you for the explanation, Benett. That is very helpful for deciding
about what path to go with regards to location-related metadata.

Best,

Felix

2010/3/1 <Bennett.Marks@nokia.com>

>  Hi Felix,
>
>
>
> My answer to your question is biased by the fact that we (MWG) have worked
> initially on still image metadata, and are driven, to some extent by
> consumer workflows and the desire to reconcile those workflows across both
> still image and video.
>
>
>
> So, syntactically, we have found that there is a need to gather locations
> both as latitude and longitude, and in some controlled textual syntax. The
> bias for lat/long has been CIPA Exif, as this is pretty much the universal
> standard for capturing embedded lat/long in photography. Regarding, the
> textual representation, it is clear that some sort of controlled vocabulary
> is required, otherwise textual location is no more than keywords. For this,
> we have found that the XMP structured location proposed by the IPTC
> (International Press Telecommunications Council) (
> http://www.iptc.org/cms/site/index.html?channel=CH0086) works well for our
> requirements. It is a five level hierarchy (World Region, Country/Country
> Code, State/Province, City, Sublocation), but it says little about how to
> control the input.
>
>
>
> IMHO,  other than the OGC, all of the organizations mentioned in the
> Geolocation WG charter have particular problems that they want to solve that
> tend to bias the directions they are heading. While I think that is also
> true about what I proposed above, the difference is that the bias is
> specifically toward embedded media metadata. J
>
>
>
> *   -Bennett*
>
>
>
> *From:* felix.sasaki@googlemail.com [mailto:felix.sasaki@googlemail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *ext Felix Sasaki
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 28, 2010 5:40 AM
> *To:* Marks Bennett (Nokia-CIC/Boston)
> *Cc:* werner.bailer@joanneum.at; vmalaise@few.vu.nl; wslee@etri.re.kr;
> public-media-annotation@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting
>
>
>
> Hello Bennett,
>
> I agree that this separation is useful, and I think we should adopt it in
> MAWG. But this is a personal opinion, a working group answer will come
> later. A question regarding the syntactic issue: have you looked at / worked
> on / preferring a specific effort of standardization in this area, see e.g.
> the efforts listed at sec. 3.2 from
> http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/charter/ ?
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
> 2010/2/26 <Bennett.Marks@nokia.com>
>
> In the still image world, the IPTC notion of "LocationCreated" and
> "LocationShown" is finally becoming ubiquitous. Indeed, even the Exif GPS
> properties have 2 separate areas for collecting point of creation and
> subject location (destination). This notion translates fairly well to video.
> The real issue is the widely variable syntactics assigned to location ( e.g.
> hierarchical data structures, country codes and controlled vocabularies).
> This is a result of the desire to provide extra semantic value to the
> location property, above what comes from treating the location as a keyword.
>
> The MWG has found it extremely useful to clearly separate these two notions
> of location, and we hope MAWG will also make the semantic difference clear.
> Furthermore, I would hope that you review the decision to put depicted
> location into keywords, as there is a loss of semantic value when you do
> that.
>
> -Bennett Marks  Sr. Architect CDO/CIC NOKIA
> Chair Metadata Working Group - Video
> › 5 Wayside Rd., Burlington MA  01803
> š bennett.marks@nokia.com
> È +1 781 308 6556 [mobile]
>  +1 781 993 1911 [fax]
> Skype: bennettmarks  Yahoo:bennettmarks439 GMail:bennettmarks439
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:
> public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ext Bailer, Werner
> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 5:00 AM
> To: Veronique Malaise; 이원석
> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: AW: Updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting
>
> Dear Véronique, all,
>
> I agree that both describing recording and depicted location is useful. We
> had the discussion at the F2F in Stockholm, and we came up with the proposal
> to use location for recording location, and would put information about
> depicted locations into description or keywords (similar to other content
> related annotation).
>
> Best regards,
> Werner
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Veronique Malaise [vmalaise@few.vu.nl]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Februar 2010 10:18
> An: 이원석
> Cc: Bailer, Werner; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Betreff: Re: Updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Well, one problem with this restricted definition is, for example that all
> the "spaghetti westerns" (a fistfull of dollars etc directed by Sergio
> Leone) would have the location "Italy" although the story is supposed to
> take place in Texas/Mexico. I would be in favor of keeping the extended
> definition: a resource can be about some place and be shot in another one.
> It is actually quite common for movies!
>
> Best,
> Véronique
>
> On Feb 26, 2010, at 7:35 AM, 이원석 wrote:
>
> Hi. Werner and all,
> Thanks for your additional comment.
>
> I agree with your comment. I will use this instead of earlier one ☺
>
> Best regards,
> Wonsuk.
>
> From: Bailer, Werner [mailto:werner.bailer@joanneum.at]
> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 12:12 AM
> To: 이원석; public-media-annotation@w3.org<mailto:
> public-media-annotation@w3.org>
> Subject: RE: Updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting
>
> One more comment: The definition of ma:location is “A location associated
> with the resource. This property can refer to a depicted location or the
> location where the resource was captured.” We had changed that to “A
> location where the resource has been shot/recorded.” at the 4th F2F (see
> summary table). I prefer the letter, as it is a stricter definition.
>
> Best regards,
> Werner
>
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org<mailto:
> public-media-annotation-request@w3.org> [mailto:
> public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ???
> Sent: Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2010 09:36
> To: public-media-annotation@w3.org<mailto:public-media-annotation@w3.org>
> Subject: Updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting
>
> below is the updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting.
> Please review and if you have any comment, let me know.
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html
>
> best regards,
> Wonsuk.
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 19:27:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 1 March 2010 19:27:13 GMT