W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > October 2005

RE: [MM] Timing of Mike & Libby's review

From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:10:08 -0700
Message-ID: <4301AFA5A72736428DA388B73676A381B4CAFD@XCH-NW-6V1.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Jacco van Ossenbruggen" <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>, "Libby Miller" <libby@asemantics.com>
Cc: "swbp" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Yes, I will. I couldn't stop myself from having a peak at the draft as
of Friday, Here are a few comments:

You make a very bold claim: 

"The best solution to this problem covering almost all the present and
future uses of the content is the description and archiving of each
photo with the aid of a tool providing a semantic metadata structure
using the Semantic Web technologies "

It is an untested hypothesis that semantic approaches will be the best,
it is also untested that Semantic Web languages are the best of all
semantic approaches.
It may be time to speculate that one day that might be true, but it is
clearly not so today. 

It would be truer to say:
"The best solution to this problem covering almost all the present and
future uses of the content is the description and archiving of each
photo with the aid of a tool providing a metadata structure for
organizing the photo collections."

The best solution for most people today, is to use any of the myriad of
photo organization tools out there from the simple and free ones, to the
high end pro-oriented ones.  You don't even mention those.

Obviously, this note does not address users of these tools, but rather
developers.  I'm a serious photographer drowning in over 20,000 slides
and another few thousand jpegs. I recognized 15 years ago that I really
needed an ontology to categorize them all. I'm still waiting for tools
to support this.  

I would like to see this document specifically target developers of
photo organizing software for my own selfish reasons, I want to have
semantically-enabled tools!

I would love to see a new wave of photo-organization tools with semantic
tagging and search. By far the richest one around, of the affordable
variety is: Imatch http://www.photools.com/ which has a remarkably rich
feature set. 
See: http://www.urban75.org/tech/imatch.html for a [random and possibly
dated] review.

I don't know that such tools could be affordably created for a mass
market, but they might work for the pro-sumer and pro markets. One
potential benefit in the mass market is for people to share their
ontologies using OWL mapping tools. I wish I got paid to do this stuff
applied to photography.


"Use Case: large-scale image collections at NASA"

This is too specific, why single out NASA, lots of organizations have
large image collections.  Large companies have them (e.g. Boeing), so do
the many commercial image libraries, such as Corbus, or Getty.

These collections exist for different reasons, for a big company, images
are used for a variety of reasons, such as PR, internal presentaions,
and some may be sold externally. For an image library, the sole purpose
is to sell images. These give rise to different 'sub-use-cases, that may
differ in important ways.

Mike Uschold
Tel: 425 865-3605              Fax: 425 865-2965

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Jacco van Ossenbruggen [mailto:Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl] 
>  Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 11:03 AM
>  To: Uschold, Michael F; Libby Miller
>  Cc: swbp
>  Subject: [MM] Timing of Mike & Libby's review
>  Mike, Libby,
>  Thanks for volunteering for the review.  In the today's 
>  teleconf, the WG 
>  agreed upon getting the draft ready on the 27th of October.  
>  I just want 
>  to make sure you actually have time to review the document 
>  in the week 
>  before the f2f, if not please let me know when you want to 
>  have a first 
>  version.
>  Thanks again,
>  Jacco
>  PS: the document is currently not ready for review, but if 
>  you want to 
>  peek around it is at 
>  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/MM/image_annotation.html
Received on Monday, 17 October 2005 21:10:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:13 UTC