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

Photo UC : comparison of relevant vocabularies

From: Erik Mannens <erik.mannens@ugent.be>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 10:37:36 +0100
To: <public-xg-mmsem@w3.org>
Cc: <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>, <rik.vandewalle@UGent.be>
Message-ID: <004601c75be5$3f046700$36d5c19d@elis.UGent.be>
Dear all,

 

 

Related to one of Susanne's action points [1] , MMLab made a detailed
comparison (attached as xls) of the relevant vocabularies for describing
still images as listed in the vocabularies page [2].

 

The following preliminary conclusions can be made about VRA Core 3, Exif
2.2, PhotoRDF, NISO Z39.87, DIG35 v1.0:

 

-          Most of the above listed standards are created for describing
different kinds of metadata. These metadata types can generally be
categorized into 5 classes: 

o         technical metadata (device capture settings)

o         content metadata (what is depicted)

o         change history metadata (what image processing has been applied)

o         intellectual property rights metadata (who owns it, are there use
restrictions,.)

o         basic image parameter metadata (file type, size, ID,
compression,.)

-          The camera capture settings information of the NISO Z39.87 and
DIG35 v1.0 standards have been drawn from the more complete Exif 2.2 format.
Besides camera capture settings, Exif has also tags for describing image
data characteristics/structures and GPS data. 

-          PhotoRDF uses predefined keywords to describe the content, has a
very limited set of elements (mostly directly related to Dublin Core)

-          VRA Core 3.0 also uses the Dublin Core "Description" element
which is "A textual description of the content of the resource, including
abstracts in the case of document-like objects or content descriptions in
the case of visual resources." 

-          DIG35 v1.0 offers a wide spectrum of tags to explain the content
and it is even possible to define regions within an image. The DIG35 v1.0
standard has many tags to describe all types of metadata and seems to be the
most complete vocabulary for describing still images, but no standardized
mapping to RDF/OWL is available.

 

 

Sincere greetings,
 


Gaetan, Chris, Erik

 

[1] : http://www.w3.org/2006/12/08-mmsem-minutes.html#action06

[2] : http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/mmsem/wiki/Vocabularies

 

 




Received on Thursday, 1 March 2007 09:37:52 GMT

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