- From: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
- Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:19:47 +0100
- To: swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Dear all, One of Mike's comments was about the missing conclusion section. I agree that we need such a section, and I've just checked in a first draft [1]. Please comment by replying to this mail or feel free to check in improvements directly. Thanks, Jacco [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/MM/image_annotation.html#conclusions 6. Conclusions Current Semantic Web technology is sufficiently generic to support annotation of a wide variety of Web resources, including image resources. This document provides examples of the use of Semantic Web languages and tools for image annotation, based on use cases for a wide variety of domains. It also briefly surveys some currently available vocabularies and tools that can be used to annotate images on the Semantic Web. The use of Semantic Web technology has significant advantages in applications areas in which the interoperability of heterogeneous metadata is important and in areas that require an explicitly defined and formal semantics of the metadata in order to perform reasoning tasks. Still, many things need to be improved. Commonly accepted, widely used vocabularies for image annotation are still missing. Having such vocabularies would help in sharing metadata across applications and across multiple domains. Especially, a standard means to address subregions withing an image is still missing. In addition, tool support needs to improve dramatically before Semantic Web-based image annotation can be applied on an industrial scale: support needs to be integrated the entire production and distribution chain. Finally, many existing approaches for image metadata are not based on Semantic Web technology, and work is required to make these approaches interoperable with Semantic Web-based technology.
Received on Thursday, 9 March 2006 10:19:52 UTC