- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 11:28:01 -0700
- To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
- Cc: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
At 22:02 +0100 4/05/09, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I agree with David that "my favourite scenes" is neither 'intrinsic' not
>'published'. I also agree to call that 'user' metadata, and would point
>out that our use case 5.6 [1] is exactly about that.
>
>But the properties proposed by Felix are not, IMO, limited to user
>generated metadata. Some videos are complex, and different fragments may
>have different intrinsic or published metadata. A canonical example is a
>news report, which is a composite media object comprising several parts.
>Both the whole report and each part deserve theit own metadata
>(intrinsic and published), but it should be possible to express the
>relation between the whole and the parts.
right, time-variant metadata is a big question.
Most annotation/metadata systems think of it as
time-invariuant ('applies to the whole
resource'). However, some things are better
time-variant (e.g. the copyright owner of a movie
assembled from pieces might vary by piece).
It's easy to design an interface "at time T in
this movie, what is the answer to X" and have the
reply be "at any time, the answer is Y"
(time-invariant label). It's harder to answer
"what is the answer to X" with "well, that
depends on what time in the movie you ask about".
worth pondering...
>
> pa
>
>[1]
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-reqs-20090119/#uc-user-generated-metadata
>
>Felix Sasaki a écrit :
>>
>>
>> 2009/5/5 David Singer <singer@apple.com <mailto:singer@apple.com>>
>>
>> At 7:14 +0200 2/05/09, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>>
>> List of my favorite scences of a video, as part of the video
>> metadata? Does that not make sense?
>>
>>
>> Oh wow, this is a new category of metadata.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is it so new? At least the mechanisms listed in the media fragments
>> draft seem to exist for some time. So my assumption was that the
>> mechanisms are actually used, and that mapping betweeen them is useful.
>> If they exist only as a new category, to be filled by the new fragment
>> identifier syntax defined by the media fragments WG, than it does not
>> make sense to invest time in their mapping.
>>
>> Felix
>>
>>
>>
>> So far I have been seeing
>>
>> * 'intrinsic' properties of the media itself (duration, whether it
>> has video, audio etc.)
>> * published annotations for the media (copyright, title, etc.)
>>
>> both of these are 'source supplied'.
>>
>> 'My favorite scenes' is user-supplied. Hm.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Singer
>> Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
>Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
>
>Attachment converted: DaveG49:signature 311.asc ( / ) (00219A47)
--
David Singer
Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 18:30:34 UTC