- From: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
- Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:40:04 +0100
- To: Bennett.Marks@nokia.com
- Cc: werner.bailer@joanneum.at, vmalaise@few.vu.nl, wslee@etri.re.kr, public-media-annotation@w3.org
- Message-ID: <ba4134971002280240q5f83d2c6mf06fe67e0a0dd252@mail.gmail.com>
Hello Bennett, I agree that this separation is useful, and I think we should adopt it in MAWG. But this is a personal opinion, a working group answer will come later. A question regarding the syntactic issue: have you looked at / worked on / preferring a specific effort of standardization in this area, see e.g. the efforts listed at sec. 3.2 from http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/charter/ ? Best, Felix 2010/2/26 <Bennett.Marks@nokia.com> > In the still image world, the IPTC notion of "LocationCreated" and > "LocationShown" is finally becoming ubiquitous. Indeed, even the Exif GPS > properties have 2 separate areas for collecting point of creation and > subject location (destination). This notion translates fairly well to video. > The real issue is the widely variable syntactics assigned to location ( e.g. > hierarchical data structures, country codes and controlled vocabularies). > This is a result of the desire to provide extra semantic value to the > location property, above what comes from treating the location as a keyword. > > The MWG has found it extremely useful to clearly separate these two notions > of location, and we hope MAWG will also make the semantic difference clear. > Furthermore, I would hope that you review the decision to put depicted > location into keywords, as there is a loss of semantic value when you do > that. > > -Bennett Marks Sr. Architect CDO/CIC NOKIA > Chair Metadata Working Group - Video > 5 Wayside Rd., Burlington MA 01803 > bennett.marks@nokia.com > +1 781 308 6556 [mobile] > +1 781 993 1911 [fax] > Skype: bennettmarks Yahoo:bennettmarks439 GMail:bennettmarks439 > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto: > public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ext Bailer, Werner > Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 5:00 AM > To: Veronique Malaise; 이원석 > Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org > Subject: AW: Updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting > > Dear Véronique, all, > > I agree that both describing recording and depicted location is useful. We > had the discussion at the F2F in Stockholm, and we came up with the proposal > to use location for recording location, and would put information about > depicted locations into description or keywords (similar to other content > related annotation). > > Best regards, > Werner > > ________________________________________ > Von: Veronique Malaise [vmalaise@few.vu.nl] > Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Februar 2010 10:18 > An: 이원석 > Cc: Bailer, Werner; public-media-annotation@w3.org > Betreff: Re: Updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting > > Hi everyone, > > Well, one problem with this restricted definition is, for example that all > the "spaghetti westerns" (a fistfull of dollars etc directed by Sergio > Leone) would have the location "Italy" although the story is supposed to > take place in Texas/Mexico. I would be in favor of keeping the extended > definition: a resource can be about some place and be shot in another one. > It is actually quite common for movies! > > Best, > Véronique > > On Feb 26, 2010, at 7:35 AM, 이원석 wrote: > > Hi. Werner and all, > Thanks for your additional comment. > > I agree with your comment. I will use this instead of earlier one ☺ > > Best regards, > Wonsuk. > > From: Bailer, Werner [mailto:werner.bailer@joanneum.at] > Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 12:12 AM > To: 이원석; public-media-annotation@w3.org<mailto: > public-media-annotation@w3.org> > Subject: RE: Updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting > > One more comment: The definition of ma:location is “A location associated > with the resource. This property can refer to a depicted location or the > location where the resource was captured.” We had changed that to “A > location where the resource has been shot/recorded.” at the 4th F2F (see > summary table). I prefer the letter, as it is a stricter definition. > > Best regards, > Werner > > From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org<mailto: > public-media-annotation-request@w3.org> [mailto: > public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ??? > Sent: Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2010 09:36 > To: public-media-annotation@w3.org<mailto:public-media-annotation@w3.org> > Subject: Updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting > > below is the updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting. > Please review and if you have any comment, let me know. > > http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html > > best regards, > Wonsuk. > > >
Received on Sunday, 28 February 2010 10:40:41 UTC