W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January 2006

[MM] Review (partial): Image annotation on the Semantic Web

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 15:42:27 +0100
Message-ID: <43C27653.1090500@cs.vu.nl>
To: SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Review of Image annotation on the Semantic Web
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/MM/image_annotation.htmlEditors'Draft 
$Date: 2006/01/05 14:06:23 $ $Revision: 1.121 $

Overall:

This is only a partial review (up to Sec. 5.1). So far, the
document is fine with me, provided the comments below are
taking into account.

There are two missing use cases:
  - Press Photo Bank
  - Medical Image Annotations
but the document can be published as a WD without these
being present.

Details (0overall):
- quite a number of small textual errors (e.g. plural
   vs. singular);  careful read-through of the text is
   necessary
- refrain from using subjective terms like "very"

Specific comment per section:

Sec. 1

[[
   At the time of writing, most work done in this area is not
   based on semantic-based technology often because the
   semantic technology was not as well accepted as in these
   days.
]]

Reasons seems to be more related to differences in
communities (MPEG/multimedia vs. W3C/web/text). Suggest to
rephrase.

[[
    1.1 Image Annotation Basics
]]

Suggest to change "basics" to "issues"
I also suggest to use a numbered list of issues for later
back reference.

[[
   The reader should be aware, however, that ..
]]

Given the intended user audience this may sound
presumptuous. Suggest to delete.

[[
   The idea is to associate Web resources with *annotations*
   which describe the contents and/or functionalities of Web
   resources.
]]

Suggest to replace "annotations" with "semantic
categories".

[[
   <rdf:RDF .....
]]

Explain the RDF in words as your target audience is not
assumed to be able to understand this. Similar comments hold
for the other RDF/XML examples. A the end of Sec. 1: refer
readers to the RDF/OWL primers/guides for more details.

Sec. 2 Use Cases

[[
    See also example solution example solution.
]]

Change to more descriptive wording.

[[
    Use case: Media Production Services
    ....
     In order to facilitate the above process, the annotation
    of image content should make use of Semantic Web
    technologies
]]

Use cases should not contain technology solutions. The whole
idea of the use case is to focus on the problem to be
solved. Please reformulate this, and delete everything
related to SW technology.

Sec. 3

VRA: state more clearly that the advantage is that it is
a DC specialization for visual resources.

[[
   The more general elements of VRA Core have direct mappings
   to comparable fields in Dublin Core.
]]

All VRA elements are defined as specializations of  one or
more dC elements.

Sec 4

[[
   Format of Metadata. ....
   OWL and RDF are used for this aim,
]]

Are there no tools supporting MPEG-7? It would be
appropriate to include these as well.

[[
   We maintain a separate Web page (that is periodically
   updated)
]]

Indicate what maintenance effort the reader can expect. Be
realistic about this.

Sec. 5

[[
    This section describes possible solutions for the use
    cases presented in Section 2
]]

I would rephrase this as:

    This section describes possible scenario's for how
    Semantic Web technology could be used for supporting the
    use cases presented in Section 2

In general, I would prefer not to use the term "solution",
as it could be seen as an overstatement.

[[
    5.1 Use Case: Management of Personal Digital Photo
    Collections
]]

I would not repeat here the full text of Sec. 2. Either
summarize or refer back (preferred by me).

Are the rights for the image(s) cleared?

More to follow.

Guus

-- 
Free University Amsterdam, Computer Science
De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 598 7739/7718; e-mail: schreiber@cs.vu.nl
Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
Received on Monday, 9 January 2006 14:42:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:16 UTC