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

Guus,

Thanks for your comments posted in [1]. The new version is now:
Editors' Draft $Date: 2006/01/23 15:24:04 $ $Revision: 1.126 $

You will find below the detailed changes addressing your comments:

> [...]
>
> Details (0overall):
> - quite a number of small textual errors (e.g. plural
>    vs. singular);  careful read-through of the text is
>    necessary

fixed

> - refrain from using subjective terms like "very"

fixed

> 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.

Rephrase as:
"At the time of writing, most work done in this area does not use semantic-based
technologies mainly because of the differences between the multimedia and the web
communities and their underlying standardization organizations."

> [[
>     1.1 Image Annotation Basics
> ]]
>
> Suggest to change "basics" to "issues"

done as suggested

> I also suggest to use a numbered list of issues for later
> back reference.

done as suggested

> [[
>    The reader should be aware, however, that ..
> ]]
>
> Given the intended user audience this may sound
> presumptuous. Suggest to delete.

The sentence was not deleted but rephrased as:
"The reader should be warned, however, that large scale, industrial strength
image annotation is notoriously complex."

> [[
>    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".

done as suggested

> [[
>    <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.

done, the code snippet is detailed as well as the XML namespaces explained.
References to RDF Primer and OWL Guide provided.

> Sec. 2 Use Cases
>
> [[
>     See also example solution example solution.
> ]]
>
> Change to more descriptive wording.

Change to:
"Section 5.1 provides an example solution for this use case using semantic-web
technologies."

> [[
>     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.

This comment meets a previous one formulated by Mike. All the use case
description has been rephrased and there is not anymore reference to SW
technology in the description.

> 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.

As the VRA guru, we trust you (Jacco aggree too :-)
The sentence has been rephrased to:
"All the elements of VRA Core have either direct mappings to comparable fields in
Dublin Core or 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.

True, done.

> [[
>    We maintain a separate Web page (that is periodically
>    updated)
> ]]
>
> Indicate what maintenance effort the reader can expect. Be
> realistic about this.

We will try to update the separate living web pages on a regular basis, either
with our personal find, or most probably by answering specific request, comments,
suggestions, new tools annoucements, etc ...
The following sentence has been added:
"Any comments, suggestions or new tools annoucements will be added to this
separate document."

> 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

done as suggested.

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

The word "solution" has been most of time replaced in the document.

> [[
>     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).

There is now a reference.

> Are the rights for the image(s) cleared?

Yes for the images from the personal use case, the e-culture use case, and the
NASA use case. For the TV archive use case, it was no possible to be sure to not
have copyright issue, the image has thus been removed.

    Raphaël

[1]  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0023.html

--
Raphaël Troncy
CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science),
Kruislaan 413, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093
Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312
Web: http://www.cwi.nl/ins2/

Received on Monday, 23 January 2006 15:26:30 UTC