Re: Some thoughts on use cases

Hi Werner,



Bailer, Werner さんは書きました:
> Dear all,
>
> I've had a look at the list of proposed use cases in the issue tracker
> and here are some thoughts:
>
> - "Video on IPTV" [issue 6065]: I'm not sure what the specifics of video
> on IPTV are, and why this might be different from a metadata perspective
> than delivering video + metadata by other means
>   

probably it makes sense to merge "Video on IPTV" with "Services by using 
an unified media annotation" (6064).

> - "Covering variations across locales" [issue 6066] is rather a
> requirement than a use case on its own
>   

true, I changed that.

> - "Multi media and semantic web technologies" [issue 6069]: I think that
> came out of Tobias' introductory mail and describes quite well what this
> group is supposed to be dealing with, but I think it is too unspecific
> to be a use case
>   


agree. Probably we should drop this?

> - "Metadata to help promoting safe environments" [issue 6068] could this
> be a specific aspect of an adaptation use case?
>   

Agree. I added that info to issue 6084.

> - "Audiovisual archive as a Cultural Heritage institution" [issue 6067]:
> this is a very interesting and rich use case, that includes search
> [6083], maybe adaptation [6084] and very likely metadata
> interoperability issues (related to [6080], but going beyond tagging)
>   

I agree that this is a very rich use case, but maybe too broad. What do 
others think?

> - I believe the "semantic media analysis" [issue 6081] use case of the
> MMSem XG comes from analysis for retrieval and is thus related to [6083]
>   

Agree. We could close 6081.

> - "algorithm representation" [issue 6082]: I think that this the one of
> the MMSem XG use cases that goes beyond our scope
>   

agree.

> - "multimedia adaptation" [issue 6084]: in their mail Erik and Davy
> mentioned "region of interest selection" under this heading, which I
> consider an interesting aspect (one could maybe label it summarisation
> or highlight extraction). This could be related to the representation of
> search results (e.g. summaries showing aspects of videos relevant to the
> query) and to the exploration of audiovisual archives.
>   

This seems a good way to build a bridge between media annotation and 
media fragments. But I am not sure if we should classify this as 
something to tackle later, after the first version of the ontology, and 
the first version of media fragments. What do people think?

Felix

> Best regards,
> Werner 
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Werner Bailer
>   Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
>   JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
>   Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
>  
>   phone:  +43-316-876-1218               mobile: +43-699-1876-1218
>   web:    http://iis.joanneum.at            fax: +43-316-876-1191      
>   e-mail: mailto:werner.bailer@joanneum.at
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2008 06:30:04 UTC