AW: [new use case suggestion] Use Case - Digital imaging lifecycle

Dear Ruben, Veronique, all,

I'm not sure about the inclusion "historic metadata" (actual I would suggest to use the term processing metadata or processing history metadata instead): This information can be quite detailed, specific to tools applied (e.g. settings, parameters), and is quite low-level information.

The set of people/organisations contributing to the creation of the media item (P_Meta uses the term "contributor", as this might involve less creative contributors such as movie producers) is relevant and I support Veronique's proposal. If necessary the type of contribution could be quite fine-grained in a certain application, without hindering other applications to deal with the concept of a generic creator.

Best regards,
Werner

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org im Auftrag von vmalaise@few.vu.nl
Gesendet: Di 04.11.2008 11:34
An: Felix Sasaki
Cc: Rubén Tous; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Betreff: Re: [new use case suggestion] Use Case - Digital imaging lifecycle
 

Quoting Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>:

Dear all, 

I also do think that our ontology should not go in too many details, but allow 
placeholders for other schemas to fit in: having one generic "creator" 
property/tag, and giving the possibility to scheme that are more refined to 
extend this single property/tag into "conceptual creator" and "concrete 
realisator of the piece". On the other hand, if we go for a description model 
that keeps the distinction between the idea (the idea of a movie for example), a 
realisation (one adaptation by a director) of the work and instances (a video 
tape/DVD), it is possible to attach a property/tag of "creator" at all these 
levels. the seamtic would be the agregation between the level of description 
(idea/work/instance) and the role (creator).
But of course, this is just an idea, open to criticism... or approval :)
What do you think?

Best,
Veronique  

> 
> 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 ã.ã,"はæ>¸ãã¾ã-ãY:
> >
> > 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: "VÃf­ctor RodrÃf­guez Doncel" <victorr@ac.upc.edu>
> > Cc: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>; "Pierre-Antoine Champin" 
> > <swlists-040405@champin.net>; "RubÃf©n 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 VÃf­ctor RodrÃf­guez 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,
> >>> VÃf­ctor RodrÃf­guez Doncel
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Felix Sasaki escribiÃf³:
> >>> >
> >>> > Pierre-Antoine Champin ã.ã,"はæ>¸ãã¾ã-ãY:
> >>> >> Felix Sasaki a Ãf©crit :
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> 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 RubÃf©n 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 16:50:56 UTC