- From: Florian Stegmaier <stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de>
- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:10:40 +0200
- To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Dear all, I think we should add the elements of the field "descriptive metadata", because they are a real improvement. We should discuss, whether we need the elements concerning technical metadata. These sound quiet interesting, but i´m not sure if they are in the scope of our "ontology v1.0" right now - and unfortunately they produce some kind of conflicts, as Werner pointed out. I´m looking forward to today´s telecon. Best regards, Florian Am 27.04.2009 um 16:53 schrieb Bailer, Werner: > Dear Joakim, all, > > I've now looked again at the set of properties we've defined in > Barcelona and checked it against sets of metadata properties we have > been using in recent project. In general I did not identify really > big gaps, however, there are some smaller issues. > > * Concerning descriptive metadata, there are just two minor things > that could be added either as separate elements with qualifiers to > elements we already have in the set: > > - tag line is a commonly used property for movies (it could also be > a specific kind of title) > > - reference to other media representing the content, such as > thumbnails, trailers, etc. (could be expressed as a specific type of > relation + URI) > > * Concerning technical metadata, I found one important and a few > nice to have properties missing: > > - There is no property to describe the number of tracks (and maybe > type of tracks), e.g. which audio channels in a surround setup, > several language channels, audio commentary, etc., in future > probably also several video channels. The MFWG has defined "track > fragments" as a specific type of fragment identifier, so the range > of options for this kind of fragments for a content must be known. > > - sample type/depth could be useful at least in a limited way, e.g. > to express black/white or color, in some application (e.g. medical > imaging) a more precise specification could be helpful > > - file size/bit rate could be useful for media to be downloaded/ > streamed > > - I know we excluded temporal sampling rate, but I'm not sure why it > should be excluded when spatial sampling rate is included > > Best regards, > Werner > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org >> [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of >> Joakim Söderberg >> Sent: Sonntag, 19. April 2009 18:34 >> To: public-media-annotation@w3.org >> Subject: F2F 3 and call for comments >> >> Folks, >> >> The third F2F was successfully conducted at UPC in Barcelona. >> >> Thanks to the hosts and all present participants! You did a >> really good job and we had some very constructive and discussions. >> >> >> >> As a result of this meeting we now have a set of "Media >> Annotations Attributes". It is a very important result since >> it will be the foundation of our second publication "Media >> Entity Ontology". >> >> THIS IS CALL TO ALL PARTICIPANTS OF MEDIA ANNOTATIONS WG TO >> PLEASE STUDY THIS TABLE AND PROVIDE COMMENTS! The table can >> be found on our Wiki: >> >> >> >> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/Top_Supported_Tags >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> Joakim >> >>
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2009 08:10:50 UTC