Hello Ruben, all, as you said below, in some formats like EXIF there is no separation between "historic" and metadata of the resource, and in others there is. Again I think we need to decide: how many details do we want to take into account? I think for metadata interoperability, the EXIF+others approach from the metadata WG is sufficient. What do you think? Felix Rubén Tous さんは書きました: > > Dear all, > > it make sense to me to cover all the three main media categories > (video, still images and audio) as a hole or as three separated parts. > > However, the intention of my example was not so ambitious, it was just > related to what in DIG35 (cited in the PhotoUC) is named "History > Metadata": > >> From Section 3.2.4 in DIG35 > (http://xml.coverpages.org/FU-Berlin-DIG35-v10-Sept00.pdf) : > > "For example, history may include certain processing steps that have > been applied to an image. Another example of a history would be the > image creation events including digital capture, exposure of negative > or reversal films, creation of prints, transmissive scans of negatives > or positive film, or reflective scans of prints. All of this metadata > is important for some applications. To permit flexibility in > construction of the image history metadata, two alternate > representations of the history are permitted" > > I think that EXIF and other formats mix this concept with the metadata > of the resource (e.g. the Exposure Time field in EXIF) but others like > DIG35 or MXF and AAF (Part 15 of > http://www.aafassociation.org/html/specs/aafobjectspec-v1.1.pdf talks > about Physical Essence) make a clear differentiation. > > What about a "History Metadata" Use Case? > > Best regards, > > Ruben > > ----- Original Message ----- From: <vmalaise@few.vu.nl> > To: "VÃctor RodrÃguez Doncel" <victorr@ac.upc.edu> > Cc: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>; "Pierre-Antoine Champin" > <swlists-040405@champin.net>; "Rubén Tous" <rtous@ac.upc.edu>; > <public-media-annotation@w3.org> > Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:58 AM > Subject: Re: [new use case suggestion] Use Case - Digital imaging > lifecycle > > >> >> Dear all, >> >> How about this solution: we could group a number of use cases under >> the "media" >> category, as we already have an "audio" use case, and take into >> account in the >> ontology 1.0 only the requirements that overlap with others? The >> description of >> the use case would show what other aspects still need to be taken into >> consideration when aiming for still images description compatibility. >> >> Best, >> Veronique >> >> Quoting VÃctor RodrÃguez Doncel <victorr@ac.upc.edu>: >> >>> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> I think it should be distinguished between the user roles regarding the >>> resource, and the user roles regarding the represented object. >>> Thus, the three kind of applications or roles defined by the >>> metadataworkinggroup (creator/changer/consumer) operate on the resource >>> but may not match logically the role regarding the represented object. >>> >>> For example, the word "creator" is somewhat ambiguous because it may >>> refer to the role which creates materially the resource, or to the >>> actual artist which conceives an idea. Both "creators" do not >>> necessarily match. Have you thought about it? >>> >>> Regards, >>> VÃctor RodrÃguez Doncel >>> >>> >>> Felix Sasaki escribió: >>> > >>> > Pierre-Antoine Champin ã.ã,"ã¯æ>¸ãã¾ã-ãY: >>> >> Felix Sasaki a écrit : >>> >>> >>> >>> Hello Ruben, all, >>> >>> >>> >>> sorry for the late reply. Reading your proposal I think it is >>> >>> interesting for the photo use case. However I remember that we >>> >>> discussed at the f2f meeting about the focus of the Working Group, >>> >>> and most of the people want it to be video, with the possibility to >>> >>> take other use cases into account if their requirements overlap >>> more >>> >>> or less with video.I am a bit worried that your description is too >>> >>> far away from that use case. What do others think? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Although the examples given by Rubén are quite specific to still >>> >> images, it seems to me that a similar kind of concern exist for >>> >> video: video can be digitalized from analog media, captured by >>> >> digital devices or generated; they can be altered in several ways >>> >> (re-encoding, subtitling, montage...). >>> > >>> > Good point. I think an implementation of this is to separate actors >>> > or roles like creator, changer and consumer. This is what the >>> metadata >>> > working group deliverable does, see section 2 of >>> > http://www.metadataworkinggroup.com/pdf/mwg_guidance.pdf >>> > However what you are mentioning and what Ruben describes sounds to me >>> > rather like a requirement than a use case, that is the requirement to >>> > take such roles into account for relating various metadata >>> > vocabularies. What do you think? >>> > >>> > Felix >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 09:23:17 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:30 UTC