Re: Photo UC : comparison of relevant vocabularies

Dear Erik, Gaetan and Chris,

Thank you very for this detailed and very interesting survey !

First, sorry, I would need to remind you that when you have subscribed
to the public mailling-list, you should have read the W3C policies with
respect the mailling lists. Particularly, the W3C Guidelines for Email
Attachment Formats:
    http://www.w3.org/2002/03/email_attachment_formats
which states:
   1. Avoid unnecessary email attachments.  Use an attachment only when
it is likely to benefit to recipients. Otherwise, place the information
(in plain text format) in the body of your message.
   2. If an attachment is necessary, avoid formats that are virus prone,
proprietary or platform dependent.  For example, whenever possible you
should use HTML instead of MS Word, PowerPoint or PDF.  (Ideally, use
XHTML or HTML4.)
   3. If you must use a proprietary or platform-dependent format, please
also include an alternate version in  a universally readable format,
such as HTML or plain text, if possible. If you cannot, then at least
include a format that has widely available free viewers, if possible.
   4. Beware of automatic conversions to HTML.  They often produce HTML
that can only be viewed on certain browsers.  HTML Tidy may be helpful
in cleaning up HTML.
   5. Avoid JavaScript and proprietary extensions in HTML.
   6. Follow Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).

Consequently, as I said previously, I would prefer to not see Word or
Excel document attached to mails sent to this list. HTML format should
be preferred ...

Having said that, I found this Excel sheet very interesting, and I would
propose the following Action Points:
    - Michael, Erik: would you like to use the text of this email (the
general results of this survey) to be included in the Vocabularies Page
[1]?
    - Susanne, Erik, would you like to include (a summary or all) of the
various tables of this survey in a general table in the use case?

Best regards.

    Raphaël

[1]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/mmsem/deliverables/vocabularies.html



> The following preliminary conclusions can be made about VRA Core 3,
> Exif 2.2, PhotoRDF, NISO Z39.87, DIG35 v1.0:
> -Most of the above listed standards are created for describing
> different kinds of metadata. These metadata types can generally be
> categorized into 5 classes:
> otechnical metadata (device capture settings)
>
> ocontent metadata (what is depicted)
>
> ochange history metadata (what image processing has been applied)
>
> ointellectual property rights metadata (who owns it, are there use
> restrictions,…)
>
> obasic image parameter metadata (file type, size, ID, compression,…)
>
> -The camera capture settings information of the NISO Z39.87 and DIG35
> v1.0 standards have been drawn from the more complete Exif 2.2 format.
> Besides camera capture settings, Exif has also tags for describing
> image data characteristics/structures and GPS data.
>
> -PhotoRDF uses predefined keywords to describe the content, has a very
> limited set of elements (mostly directly related to Dublin Core)
>
> -VRA Core 3.0 also uses the Dublin Core “Description” element which is
> “A textual description of the content of the resource, including
> abstracts in the case of document-like objects or content descriptions
> in the case of visual resources.”
>
> -DIG35 v1.0 offers a wide spectrum of tags to explain the content and
> it is even possible to define regions within an image. The DIG35 v1.0
> standard has many tags to describe all types of metadata and seems to
> be the most complete vocabulary for describing still images, but no
> standardized mapping to RDF/OWL is available.
>

--
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/~troncy/