W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > March 2010

RE: Updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting

From: <Bennett.Marks@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:38:45 +0100
To: <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
CC: <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>, <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>, <wslee@etri.re.kr>, <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <15443028349C3C44BA819EB51B3B4F3C572622F6BC@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Hi Felix,

My answer to your question is biased by the fact that we (MWG) have worked initially on still image metadata, and are driven, to some extent by consumer workflows and the desire to reconcile those workflows across both still image and video.

So, syntactically, we have found that there is a need to gather locations both as latitude and longitude, and in some controlled textual syntax. The bias for lat/long has been CIPA Exif, as this is pretty much the universal standard for capturing embedded lat/long in photography. Regarding, the textual representation, it is clear that some sort of controlled vocabulary is required, otherwise textual location is no more than keywords. For this, we have found that the XMP structured location proposed by the IPTC (International Press Telecommunications Council) (http://www.iptc.org/cms/site/index.html?channel=CH0086) works well for our requirements. It is a five level hierarchy (World Region, Country/Country Code, State/Province, City, Sublocation), but it says little about how to control the input.

IMHO,  other than the OGC, all of the organizations mentioned in the Geolocation WG charter have particular problems that they want to solve that tend to bias the directions they are heading. While I think that is also true about what I proposed above, the difference is that the bias is specifically toward embedded media metadata. ☺


From: felix.sasaki@googlemail.com [mailto:felix.sasaki@googlemail.com] On Behalf Of ext Felix Sasaki
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 5:40 AM
To: Marks Bennett (Nokia-CIC/Boston)
Cc: werner.bailer@joanneum.at; vmalaise@few.vu.nl; wslee@etri.re.kr; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: Updated ontology doc within Seoul F2F meeting

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/ ?


2010/2/26 <Bennett.Marks@nokia.com<mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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,

Von: Veronique Malaise [vmalaise@few.vu.nl<mailto:vmalaise@few.vu.nl>]
Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Februar 2010 10:18
An: 이원석
Cc: Bailer, Werner; public-media-annotation@w3.org<mailto: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!


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,

From: Bailer, Werner [mailto:werner.bailer@joanneum.at<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><mailto: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,

From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org<mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org><mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org<mailto: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><mailto: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.


best regards,

Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 14:40:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:39 UTC