- From: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:49:16 +0200
- To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- CC: "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
Dear all, >> - "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? 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? Indeed, it seems to be one possible bridge between the two WGs. There are, however, two aspects: the identification of a ROI and the description of the ROI. The former is dealt with the Media Fragment WG while the second falls within the scope of the Media Annotation WG. Raphaël -- Raphaël 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 Tuesday, 23 September 2008 08:25:03 UTC