- From: Véronique Malaisé <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:46:23 +0100
- To: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- CC: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>, "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
Raphaël Troncy wrote: > > 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. Good point! I agree! Vero > > Raphaël >
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2008 08:45:11 UTC