Re: mapping table 2.2

2009/4/16 Rubén Tous <>

> Dear Joakim, all,
> at JPEG we have been spending some time dealing with the mappings related
> to what you call "low-level semantics" and "syntax". In fact we currently
> mix both cases in a simplistic mapping language in which we are working and
> which currently offers the following constructs:
> (the language is currently formalised as an XML schema, but here I
> translate it to pseudo-code)
> oneToOne({String fromField, [String filterWithRegExp]}, {String toField,
> [String replaceWithRegExp]});
> oneToMany(String fromField, {{String filterWithRegExp1, {String toField1,
> [String replaceWithRegExp1]}}, {String filterWithRegExp2, {String toField2,
> [String replaceWithRegExp2]}}, ...})
> manyToOne({{String fromField1, [String filterWithRegExp1]}, {String
> fromField2, [String filterWithRegExp2]},...}, {String toField, [String
> replaceWithRegExp]})
> //manyToMany is not a single mapping, but several oneToMany or manyToOne
> Source fields can be optionally filtered with regular expressions and
> target fields can be optionally formatted with regular expressions (which
> can use grouping to format only the selected part of a filtered source
> field). In the case of oneToMany, each target field has one associated
> filterWithRegExp value (which selects a part of the source field) and
> optionally one associated replaceWithRegExp value.
> Examples:
> oneToMany("date", {"(\d\d)/\d\d/\d\d\d\d", {"day", "the $1th"}},
> {"\d\d/(\d\d)/\d\d\d\d", {"month"}}, {"(\d\d)/\d\d/(\d\d\d\d)", {"year"}})
> manyToOne({{"day"},{"month"},{"year", "\d\d(\d\d)"}}, {"date",
> "$1.$2.$3"});
> manyToOne({{"//Creator//GivenName"},{"//Creator//FamilyName"}}, {"author",
> "$1 $2"});
> We are still not considering other operations between fields (arithmetic
> ops, date/time, etc.), but maybe they could be necessary in certain cases.

As an input to date/time operations and terminology, pages 17, 30, 35 of
might be helpful.


> Best regards,
> Ruben
> ----- Original Message ----- From: Joakim Söderberg
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 8:11 PM
> Subject: mapping table 2.2
> Dear all,
> I have uploaded a new version of the mapping table as a reference for the
> F2F meeting.
> In this version I have included updates and revisions for mpeg7, smtp, you
> tube, media rss, dig35, tva and CableLabs1.1 (which is more in use).
> When revising CalbeLabs1.1 (with some help) I noticed that one
> XMP-reference attribute correspond to many attributes in CableLabs
> (sometimes 20).
> The situation is the same for others such as TVA, MPEG7, EXIF etc. I think
> it is important to keep this in mind when we draft the mechanism of the
> Ontology.
> This issue is related to what Pierre-Antoine refers to "low-level"
> semantics: content of the return types vs. Syntax ( API return types, e.g.
> slash-separated string or structured sequence).
> I hope that we can find a solution to this problem during those days.
> Please post your opinions preferable before tomorrow noon!
> We have different types of mismatches; between the properties, data types
> and structure that can be solved by different parts of our standard.
> We use the following terms to refer to them:
> * High-level semantics  = (ontology) Semantic links identified by the
> mapping table.
> * Low-level semantics   = (content of the return types) Structure, e.g.
> representing one or several creators.
> * Syntax                = (API) return types, e.g. slash-separated string
> or structured sequence
> Best regards
> Joakim
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Joakim Söderberg, M.Sc, Ph.D Multimedia Indexing
> Senior Research Engineer, Media Protocols and Applications
> Ericsson Research, Multimedia Technologies

Received on Thursday, 16 April 2009 06:37:11 UTC