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

Re: Photo Use Case - relevant Metadata Standards

From: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:39:58 +0100
Message-ID: <45E6C99E.1259BB11@cwi.nl>
To: Susanne Boll <susanne.boll@informatik.uni-oldenburg.de>
CC: MMSem-XG Public List <public-xg-mmsem@w3.org>

Dear Susanne,

> I have done a few investigations with regards to photo metadata
> standards which I will also add to te use case description.

Great, thanks! A few comments below:

> [...]
> Tags from Flickr and other photo web sites and tools
> are metadata of low structure but high relevance for
> the user and the use of the photos. Manually added
> they reflect the users knowledge and understanding
> of the content which can not be replaced by any
> automatic semantic extraction. Therefore a representation
> of these is needed. Depending on the source of tags
> is might be of interest to relate the tags to their origin
> such as "taken from an existing vocablary", "from a
> suggested set of other tags" or just "free tags".

Yes, and there is here the obvious link with the Tagging Use Case you saw
since quite a long time :-)
I think that when these two use cases will be closed to their final state
(in a month or so) the general deliverable should try to concretely
instanciates these links we foresee !
Jeff, Vassilis, is this your plans ? Is there a section for that ? Somewhere
in the Section 3 ?

> XMP seems to be a very promisin standard as it
> allows to define RDF-based metadata for photos.
> However, in the description of the standard it clearly
> states that it leaves the applicaton dependent
> schema /vocabulary definition to the application
> and only makes suggestions for s set of "gteneric"
> sets such as EXIF, Dublinc Core. So the standard
> could be a good "host" for a defined photo metadata
> description scheme in RDF but does not define it.

Yes, and note that Microsoft really plans to have XMP built in the VISTA OS,
as the format for representing all the metadata of all your files on your
hard disk. So it may worth to support XMP from now in the use case.

> RDF - the basis of XMP metadata descripŁtions, however,
> might not in all cases be te optimal standard for
> metadata representation. For example, the standard
> does not allow to define selectors on top of resources.
> However, for a recognized face the metadata might
> light to describe the bounding box in the photo where
> there was a face detected and the label for this face.

Hummmm ... Could you expand a little bit more this point ?
This is something I would like to discuss with you and the group. What
exactly are the problems of RDF in your view for this use case? What are the
things you think make the things difficult to represent?

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, 1 March 2007 12:40:21 UTC

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