RE: F2F 3 and call for comments

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