ACTION-251: ThoughtLab - EuropeanaConnect Annotation Tool feedback

fyi … info on ACTION-251

Erik

---

Begin forwarded message:

From: Simon Rainer <Rainer.Simon@ait.ac.at>
Subject: AW: ThoughtLab: EuropeanaConnect Annotation Tool feedback
Date: 14 Dec 2011 12:42:59 GMT+01:00
To: Erik Mannens <erik.mannens@ugent.be>

Hi Erik!
 
Just looked at the test page – unfortunately two „mismatches“:
 
-          All the spatial fragment tests seem to be with video (which is still missing in the yuma annotation tool)
-          In general, YUMA is a tool for creating annotations, not for displaying media fragments. Our case is (as it were) the “other way round” from what (I think) you’re expecting. We do _generate_ media fragment-compliant URIs in our output. But we don’t _consume_ them. The input format we require is an annotation data format (which may include MF URIs).
 
Sorry I can’t offer any better news from our side at this point.
 
Cheers,
Rainer
 
 
Von: Erik Mannens [mailto:erik.mannens@ugent.be] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2011 20:53
An: Simon Rainer
Cc: Raphaël Troncy; Davy Van Deursen
Betreff: Re: ThoughtLab: EuropeanaConnect Annotation Tool feedback
 
Dear Simon,
 
just a humble reminder :) … as we're closing our group by the end of the year, we'd like to urgently know if you are able to test your implementation on our 9 test cases (see mail below). Thx in advance for the prompt reply and have a nice evening.
 
Sincere greetings,
 
Erik
 
---
 
On 08 Dec 2011, at 10:38, Erik Mannens wrote:
 
Dear Simon,
 
 
Great to hear! In the meantime you could do us a huge favor by testing your spatial MF implementation & filling in [1]. If you choose the fragment-axis 'spatial', it comes down to just testing 9 test cases. Just remind that 'cropped playback' is not really necessary, painting a 'bounding box' is good enough :). After filling in all, just push 'download earl report' and mail that report back to us. Do you think you can do that before the end of this week, please? Thanks in advance for the prompt reply and have a nice day.
 
[1]: http://ninsuna.elis.ugent.be/MFWG/ua-test-cases-report.html
 
 
Sincere greetings,
 
Erik
 
 
---
 
 
On 07 Dec 2011, at 18:00, Simon Rainer wrote:


Hi Erik!
 
We’re currently starting a massive re-design of the tool, now that the EuropeanaConnect project has finished - see http://yuma-js.github.com. (In other words, it’s all a big construction site at the moment ;-)
 
But yes, the new tool is using Media Fragments to express rectangular segments in images. It _will_ also use Media Fragments to express temporal fragments in audio (and rectangles/timespans in video – but that’s somewhat further down the implementation roadmap).
 
There are still open issues with expressing (i) non-rectangular fragments, and (ii) rectangular fragments in maps (where “xywh” seems somewhat awkward due to the use of geographical coordinates rather than pixels). Point (i) is rather less of an issue due to the fact that the new tool only allows rectangular selection at the moment. Regarding (ii) we’re still looking for a clean solution.
 
Cheers,
Rainer
 
 
 
Von: Erik Mannens [mailto:erik.mannens@ugent.be] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 07. Dezember 2011 17:12
An: Simon Rainer; vanessa.proudman@kb.nl
Cc: Raphaël Troncy
Betreff: ThoughtLab: EuropeanaConnect Annotation Tool feedback
 
Dear Vanessa, Rainer,
 
 
Last year we were contacted by Bernhard Haslhofer (see attached mail) concerning the possible use of our Media Fragment Specification within your Annotation Tool. Now that we're at the end of our standardization track, we're seeking for implementations and I am wondering if your tool is now already using our MF specification or if you still use this MPEG-21 counterpart? Thanks in advance for the prompt reply and have a nice day.
 
 
Sincere greetings,
 
Erik Mannens, PhD
 
W3C Media Fragments Co-chair
Research Unit Leader - Future Media & Imaging Dept.
 
Ghent University - IBBT
Faculty of Engineering and Architecture
Dept. ELIS - MMLab
Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201
B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent, Belgium
 
T: +32 9 331 49 93
F: +32 9 331 48 96
M: +32 473 27 44 17
E: erik.mannens@ugent.be
W: http://www.mmlab.be/emannens
 
 
http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be

---
 
Dear all,

we are currently working on media annotation tools for the European digital library (http://www.europeana.eu), which will allow users to contribute their knowledge to digital items. So far we developed four different tools: one for the annotation of images, one for historic maps (which are a special kind of images), one for video, and one for audio annotation. Demos and screencasts are available at:http://dme.arcs.ac.at/annotation/

In all these tools - except in the audio tool of course - we allow the user to define spatial regions in a media object, which are the segments an annotation is actually about. The possible segment shapes range from simple rectangles, over ellipses to polygons within a single media object. Allowing complex segments was a central requirement coming from the users.

We also want to exchange the created annotations as raw data and have chosen the linked data approach to do that. The question is now how to represent annotation data and the targeted segments within a media object as RDF. So far, the Europeana clients follow the Annotea standard (http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/) and represent information about the annotated segment in the fragment identifier part of the media object's URI. We are using the syntax defined by the MPEG-21 standard and introduced our own syntax for complex segments.

For interoperability purposes we would like to implement the W3C Media Fragments specification for our addressing our segments. But at the moment we have the problem that the syntax defined for the spatial dimension is insufficient for our use cases.

Therefore I would like to contribute two use-case scenarios and propose a possible technical solution. It would be great, if the specification could support our use cases in foreseeable time.

Regards,
Bernhard
 

Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2011 09:08:04 UTC