- From: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
- Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 12:04:07 +0100
- To: swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi all, I had an action item to send a first version of a requirements draft to the list [1]. Please feel free to add to the text below. I expect Raphael and Giorgos's group to add two other perspectives by posting a follow up mail in this thread (so others can easily track the progress we are making). Of course, others (Chris?) are also invited to add any requirements or perspectives they find missing in the current draft. Feel free to post follow ups! Regards, Jacco [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/01/26-MMTF-minutes.html#action21 -- Multi-perspective Requirements for a Common Multimedia Ontology Framework This document provides requirements for a common multimedia ontology framework. It recognizes the fact that multimedia ontologies are used for different goals by different applications. It discusses the presentation-oriented perspective (Van Ossenbruggen & Geurts), the archival-oriented perspective (Troncy) and the analysis-oriented perspective (Stamou et al.) [[ALL: Feel free to add or change this structure]]. -- Presentation-Oriented Requirements for a Multimedia Ontology Framework by Jacco van Ossenbruggen and Joost Geurts This section provides a short list of requirements that originate from the work at CWI om the Cuypers system, an automatic, web-based multimedia presentation engine, have partly been previously described in [Geurts05]. The requirements reflect this perspective, they focus on being able to model background knowledge and annotate media items in a way that allows them to be presented in a coherent way that satisfies user needs and his device constraints. The framework should support: 1. Comply to Semantic Web standards and best practices as much as possible. Both modeling background knowledge and multimedia annotation is an expensive task, the framework should allow and encourage re-use and sharing of information as much as possible. It should do this without overcommitment to a specific standard of formalism. For example, the framework should support both applications that need DL-reasoners and applications that need the expressivity of OWL-Full. 2. Support addressing a wide variety of multimedia fragments. When annotating part of a HTML or XML document, one can link to this part using the standard fragment identifier in the URI of the rdf:about. For almost all other media types, the semantics of the fragment identifier has not be defined or is not commonly accepted. Other ways to identify media fragments have thus to be supported (see MPEG-7 for an example). 3. Support structuring of annotations. A set of annotations of a complex multimedia artifact is more than a set of instances of a multimedia ontology. Typically, there is a preferred order in which the annotations are entered or displayed (e.g. first dc:title, then dc:creator etc), some annotation properties are mandatory while others may be optional, etc. In addition, annotations may follow the structure of the multimedia artifact. So a set of annotations of a video fragment may be structured along the same scene/sequence/shot hierarchy as the video itself. 4. Support annotations of media items in terms of the delivery context. With the wide variety of Web access devices, it becomes essential for a web service to know what the device capabilities are that playback of a media item, and other characteristics of the delivery context that influences their presentation. Examples include required network bandwidth, screen resolution, update frequency, color depth etc. Note that applications also need to be able to describe the delivery context of the client itself. (an explicit link with the W3C work on CC/PP and device independence might provide for this functionality). 5. Support the distinction between annotations that address the digital artifact and the physical object depicted by the digital artifact. Almost all media items are digital recordings of real physical items that also require annotation. Confusing the two is a mistake often made in practice (e.g. does the dc:creator of an digital image of a painting refer to the painter or the photographer?). The framework should support making explicit distinctions between the two and also allow annotators to make explicit the potentially many different type of links between them (e.g. an image could depict a part of a painting, an X-ray of a painting etc). See the distinction between Work and Image in [VRA],[Geurts05]. 6. Be lightweight and support plug-in of other ontologies. No multimedia ontology framework is ever going to be complete. Overly complex standards such as MPEG-7 have proven to have many practical problems in terms of it usability. We are convinced the framework should have a small, lightweight core that can be easily extended. For example, a scientific multimedia application might need very detailed annotations of the subject matter from a specific scientific field. The framework should support plugging in such domain-specific ontologies. In addition, many applications require existing ontologies to be reusable and plugged into the multimedia ontology framework. 7. Be open and have a license that provides unrestricted fair use. The framework is only going to be successful if it can be widely used by a large and heterogeneous community (e.g. for both professional and private usage). [Geurts05] Joost Geurts, Jacco van Ossenbruggen, and Lynda Hardman Requirements for practical multimedia annotation. In: Workshop on Multimedia and the Semantic Web Heraklion, Crete pp. 4-11 May 2005. http://www.cwi.nl/~media/publications/MMSemweb2005.pdf [VRA] Visual Resources Association Website: http://www.vraweb.org/
Received on Friday, 3 February 2006 11:04:13 UTC