- 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