W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-mmsem@w3.org > October 2006

[MMSEM UC] MPEG-7 metadata interoperability Use case - comments

From: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:28:06 +0200
Message-ID: <45407FA6.3B90D641@cwi.nl>
To: MMSem-XG Public List <public-xg-mmsem@w3.org>, Stamatia Dasiopoulou <dasiop@iti.gr>, Vassilis Tzouvaras <tzouvaras@image.ntua.gr>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>, Suzanne Little <Suzanne.Little@isti.cnr.it>

Dear Stamatia, Michael and Vassilis,

Thank you for your work on this use case. I think the work performed
these last days is important and I see this use case ready to be
reviewed now. I have some comments:
    - In your introduction, you mention 2 examples illustrating the
internal interoperability problems of MPEG-7. The first one is pretty
clear and nicely examplified. I will tend to disagree on your second
one. If I agree that MPEG-7 does not provide any formal semantics, and
therefore no semantics to the relation between a whole (multimedia
content) and its constituent parts, I have found your example
misleading. In MPEG-7, everythning is a Segment. Therefore, a StillImage
is a Segment, and its constituent are also Segment. If you query for a
Segment depicting Zidanne, you will get BOTH the whole image or the
individual segments annotated with him, with a simple XPath query. Now,
if you would like to mention you need some part-whole reasoning, it is a
different issue and you need to rephrase your example. More precisely,
in your case, if the Segment "only" is annotated with "Zidane" but not
the whole image, would you like to return the whole image to the query ?

    - I have slightly edited your text putting a new section when you
described the existing MPEG-7 ontologies. I found VERY interesting your
attempt to use the MPEG-7/ABC ontology proposed by Jane Hunter ... We
might all need here to have the wise comments of Suzanne Little who
worked with Jane. Suzanne, you will be most likely nominate to review
this use case :-)
    - In the new section 2.2, could you give also examples showing where
does it break between the Tsinaraki formalization of the SemanticsDS and
a possible coupling of the Hunter Ontology with some domain specific
ontology ? Could this problem not be simply solved with some owl:sameAs
statements ?
    -The Section 3 is promising and gives interesting research
directions ... How much you plan to elaborate on each ?

Best regards.

    RaphaŽl

--
RaphaŽl Troncy
CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science),
Kruislaan 413, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093
Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312
Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
Received on Thursday, 26 October 2006 09:45:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:20 GMT