- From: Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:07:42 +0200
- To: "Florian Stegmaier" <stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de>, <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hello, I think we should keep the technical metadata. They would be required for UC "5.4 Access via web client to metadata in heterogeneous formats" and "Multimedia adaptation". /Joakim Multimedia presentation > -----Original Message----- > From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media- > annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Florian Stegmaier > Sent: den 28 april 2009 10:11 > To: public-media-annotation@w3.org > Subject: Re: F2F 3 and call for comments > > 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 11:08:20 UTC