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

re: Charter of the extended XG

From: Erik Mannens <erik.mannens@ugent.be>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:39:31 +0200
To: "'MMSem-XG Public List'" <public-xg-mmsem@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003c01c78819$15391190$36d5c19d@elis.UGent.be>

Dear all,

I also am in favour of most things both Zeljko and Raphšel mentioned:

[1]. we need some (more) fresh ideas (and not only from academics ... see
also [2]). MMLab joined this XG just a few months ago as we had a project
where the PhotoUC was a good entry point. Other projects are on their way
(see also [3]) in collaboration with the broadcast world where the
interoperability of both video metadata (maybe an extension of the PhotoUC)
and also news metadata (we will probably join that UC as well than) are an
important issue to solve.

[2]. As we discovered lately, there are other consortia who want to tackle
the same issues as we want to solve (e.g. I3A). In the light of forming a WG
one day, industrial back-up of our work is needed and we should take the
necessary time to approach the right (industrial) partners (see also [3])

[3]. MMlab is also in favour of starting again in September, because the new
projects [1] will also be started then, some of us will have had the
opportunity to try to partner with other consortia and bring on new members
[2] and ,as Zeljko & RaphaŽl also mentioned, the working of our University
is not optimal during summer as a lot of researchers are taking holidays.

[4]. Personally, I also like the telecons every two weeks, as this keeps the
momentum going -and our team wakeful :)- all the time. F2F's should be at
least twice a year in my opinion, but that's not a problem I think as most
of us kind of attend the same conferences anyway.

Sincere greetings,

Erik Mannens
IBBT/UGhent- MMlab

-----Original Message-----
From: member-xg-mmsem-request@w3.org [mailto:member-xg-mmsem-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Zeljko Obrenovic
Sent: donderdag 26 april 2007 13:15
To: member-xg-mmsem@w3.org
Subject: Re: Charter of the extended XG

Dear all,

Just a few notes about Charter of the extended XG.

I would like to propose a new document for a new charter - "Semantic 
multimedia and Web accessibility". Web accessibility is an important topic 
for W3C and the Semantic Web community. However, current initiatives, such 
as Web Accessibility Initiate (WAI), do not address the problem of 
accessibility of multimedia content on the Web. Semantic information about 
multimedia items opens lots of possibility for improving accessibility of 
multimedia items, as it is possible to present this semantic through 
alternative interaction modalities, such as, for example, describing an 
image through the speech for blind users. This area also provides direct 
links to other W3C initiatives about accessibility, and one goal of WAI is 
to synchronize and stimulate addressing accessibility issues in documents of

other groups.

I agree with Raphael that it is better if we could start new charter in 
September, instead of right now. Next two months are very busy for everyone,

to say nothing about the summer break.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "RaphaŽl Troncy" <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
To: <member-xg-mmsem@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Charter of the extended XG

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

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

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 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 15:39:44 UTC

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