W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-mmsem@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Charter of the extended XG

From: Thomas Franz <franz@uni-koblenz.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:03:00 +0200
Message-ID: <4630B114.1040805@uni-koblenz.de>
To: MMSem-XG Public List <public-xg-mmsem@w3.org>

Dear all,

regrets for todays telco also from my side.

As for today's telco and the ongoing discussion about the future of this XG,
i pretty much agree with Raphaels points (see below).

Here is an update for the Tagging Use Case:
Last week, 7 students started to work on the so called student project
"myTag" [1] (sorry, page is in German), I reported about the initial
introduction session that took place already in February. The project is dedicated to generate
user benefits from a unified view onto tagging-based metadata by providing a
user interface for media retrieval and personomy management in form of a web site.
The project work just started and will last until summer, so if we meet again
in september (as proposed by Raphael) I hope to be able to show at least a demo.


[1] https://www.uni-koblenz.de/FB4/Institutes/IFI/AGStaab/Teaching/SS07/myTag

RaphaŽl Troncy wrote:
> Dear all,
> Based on the proposed structure of discussion in the agenda, this is my
> personal view about the rechartering process for another XG.
> (warning: long).
> 1/ Objectives / Deliverables:
> I feel we have made a nice job gathering a community and some very
> interesting research questions and problems, BUT I feel we need now new
> fresh ideas in the general approach. In short, my personal opinion is that
> we should not do exactly the same thing that the previous XG. In details, as
> key objectives/deliverables for this XG, I see:
>     - The interoperability document started in this XG: Currently, we have a
> bunch of use cases that stress interoperability problems when using multiple
> multimedia metadata formats and convincing arguments of why it is useful
> (the added value) and how to technically do that (using SW technologies). I
> really like these individual use cases, and there is now a need to compile
> them into a visionnary document, something we didn't have time to complete.
>     - MPEG-7 is quite central for the multimedia community (even when they
> don't use it). There was several attempts to formalize this standard into
> OWL/RDF. I'm not convinced that it is possible to converge towards a single
> approach, nor that it is valuable. I think, however, that there is a very
> interesting work to do in comparing these approaches and more generally to
> link any MPEG-7 formalization to the other multimedia standards. There is
> influence and overlap between MPEG-7 and standards such as DIG35, DC, IPTC,
> ID3, etc. I would stress in this document where are the bridges ...
>     - I would like to have another key problem brought by a company on these
> topics (thus the need to have industrial sponsors, see below).
> Vassilis has also mentionned some work (and possibly a document) in the
> Culturage Heritage domain which I find very interesting too.
> Finally, this follow-up XG should mention that it will maintain the two
> living pages (Vocabularies and Tools and Resources) that are great for this
> community.
> 2/ Sponsoring members:
> I had some discussion with Ivan Herman, who confirmed me that we are in a
> unique position (an XG extension) and that therefore there is no ready
> answer about whom should be the sponsoring members. Apparently, it could be
> the same or different ones than in the previous XG.
> My personal opinion is that we should have companies (W3C members) as
> sponsoring members (and not only participants) for this new follow-up XG.
> That would ease any possible future transition towards a WG (since
> sponsorship by companies is mandatory for WG). The deep reason is also
> because I think we have a unique opportunity with the WWW'07 conference in
> May (where I will present a lightening talk about the XG to all W3C members)
> and the Photo Metadata Conference(http://www.phmdc.org/, 7th of June), where
> I'm invited also. This is a great opportunity to get more industrial
> sponsors and involved them in the chartering process so they give also fresh
> ideas about what are the current problems that need to be solved (see
> above).
> 3/ Start/End date:
> I think we have lost 4 months last year because of a bad timing. We were
> surprised that the XG was accepted so fast, and we did nothing in May
> (because of the WWW'06 conference), just one telecon in June, a non-official
> F2F meeting in early July, then the summer break, and we have really started
> to work in September. So to avoid the same mistakes, I feel we should shift
> the start date in September. That allows also to have possible industrial
> sponsors in the charter!
> Therefore, my proposal would be to close the current affairs of this XG in
> the next 2 weeks, talk with the companies in Banff and in the Photo Metadata
> Conference, listen the recommendations from the XG project review meeting
> (14th of June) ... before submitting a new charter mid-june, with the aim of
> starting this follow-up XG early in September.
> 4/ Usual Meeting Schedule:
> As I pointed out to Giovanni, the scheduling of telecon and f2f has to be
> decided in the charter, but there is no fixed template forced by W3C. I also
> think that F2F are *very* important. I would like to have one F2F meeting at
> the very beginning of the XG, so in September according to my scheduling.
> Possible other F2F meetings could be colocated with ISWC'07 (November),
> SAMT'07 (December), WWW'08 (May), ESWC'08 (June), etc.
> I like the idea of having (phone) telecon every two weeks. This is the only
> way to keep the group active. The telecon might last more than one hour in
> certain case. The group could also be divided into task forces, that could
> have their own telecon on very specific subjects, even if it is not on a
> regular basis. W3C is very flexible for that.
> I would put emphasis on the "good standing" of telecon and follow-up of
> action points. I would propose to use the Tracker system in W3C to
> automatically follow up the action points and make emphasis that
> participants are expected to be in a good standing.
> 5/ Chairs:
> My personal view is that the follow-up XG should be co-chaired by an
> industrial and an academic persons. These persons do not necessarily have to
> come from a sponsoring member.
> 6/ Workshop discussion:
> The workshop idea is good, but I do not see what exactly we could discuss
> here. I feel the charter should mention with caution that the group will
> possibility organize a workshop, 4 months before the end of the XG, in order
> to move to a WG track. This workshop organisation SHOULD NOT be a
> deliverable (mandatory), otherwise we take the risk that a member that will
> not agree with this particular point, or do not want to commit to such a
> thing will not participate to the group (I remind that all participants have
> to agree on the charter!). Therefore, I would choose the phrasing with a lot
> of precaution and not make strong commitment here.
> Finally, we could also perhaps discuss about the name that this follow-up XG
> could have. My vote would be the same name "Multimedia Semantics". Anyone
> has better suggestion?
> 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 April 2007 14:03:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:01:25 UTC