- From: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>
- Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:53:35 +0200
- To: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
- CC: Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
Dear Felix, Felix Sasaki schrieb: > Hello Veronique, > > > 2009/4/2 Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl > <mailto:vmalaise@few.vu.nl>> > > Hello Felix, > > I could probably come up with an example, I could also borrow the > one developped by Raphael at the workshop of the SAMT conference, > if this could be authorised :) > > > > That would be great :) > > > > The problem is not so much of passing on metadata as such, it is > that the metadata are encoded in different formats that are not > dealt with in the other processes, although some properties might > be interesting to propagate: some keywords or tags, creating date > etc can be assigned at different moments in the life cycle, but > expressed in different metadata schemas. Which is the part where > the Ontology could have a role to play. If I understood correctly, > of course :) > > > > Probably you have - and I do not disagree with you. Nevertheless, from > a recent event at a the local film studio and discussion with experts > in the area, I have the impression that in movie industry business > reality both is an issue - that is, setting up the chain between the > hundreds or thousands of people in video / movie production, and being > able to pass properties along the way. Do we have people on this list > who are in video / movie production and could comment on that? I am not in the movie production industry but I am working together with people from Grass Valey in a project and I had a chat with one of them about exactly this issue. Yes I guess that they are facing these problems. I could ask the people once again about their opinion and how the industry deals with that problem. Best, Tobias > > Felix > > > > > Best, > Véronique > > > On Apr 2, 2009, at 4:27 PM, Felix Sasaki wrote: > >> Hello Veronique, >> >> the text looks good to me, but I have two questions: Do you have >> an example of a property which specifically would help for the >> "Canonical Processes" use case? Also, is the problem not an issue >> of information management in the media life cycle, and has to be >> solved in that area, at least in addition to the ontology? >> >> Felix >> >> 2009/4/2 Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl >> <mailto:vmalaise@few.vu.nl>> >> >> Hi everyone! >> >> Following my Action Item, here is a draft of a Use case that >> would correspond to the "canonical processes" applied to a >> media document, as discussed in the last teleconference (). >> All comments are welcome! >> >> I also updated the current Use Case and Requirement document >> according to the list's comments and reactions. >> >> Best regards, >> Véronique >> >> Title: Canonical Processes Use Case >> >> Summary: The life cycle of a media document undergoes >> different processes, which have all different canonical >> metadata properties and schemas. It is not trivial to pass on >> valuable metadata, generated during one process, to the next >> process. The Media Ontology could enhance the transmission of >> metadata in this chain that has been identified as the >> "Canonical Processes" [1] >> >> Related Requirements: >> Requirement r01: Providing methods for getting structured or >> unstructured metadata out of media objects in different formats >> Requirement r05: Providing the ontology as a simple set of >> properties >> >> Description / Example: >> As described in [1]: >> "Creating compelling multimedia presentations is a complex >> task. It involves the capture of media assets, then editing >> and authoring these into one or more final presentations. >> Tools tend to concentrate on a single aspect to reduce the >> complexity of the interface. While these tools are tailored to >> support a specific task, very often there is no consideration >> for input requirements for the next tool down the line. Each >> tool has the potential for adding semantic annotations to the >> media asset, describing relevant aspects of the asset and why >> it is being used for a particular purpose. These annotations >> need to be included in the information handed on to the >> next tool." >> The Media Ontology would help the information transfer or >> access between these different processes. >> >> [1] Lynda Hardman. Canonical Processes of Media Production. >> In Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Multimedia for Human >> Communication - From Capture to Convey (MHC 05), November 11, >> 2005. >> >> > > -- _________________________________________________ Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Tobias Bürger STI Innsbruck University of Innsbruck, Austria http://www.sti-innsbruck.at/ tobias.buerger@sti2.at __________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 14:51:27 UTC