1 / 12

Presentation of the W3C Media Annotations Working Group Activities

Presentation of the W3C Media Annotations Working Group Activities. February 2009 Lausanne, Switzerland Víctor Rodríguez, Jaime Delgado, Rubén Tous Distributed Multimedia Applications Group Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya on behalf of: W3C Media Annotations Working Group. Introduction.

sileas
Download Presentation

Presentation of the W3C Media Annotations Working Group Activities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Presentation of the W3CMedia Annotations Working GroupActivities February 2009 Lausanne, Switzerland Víctor Rodríguez, Jaime Delgado, Rubén Tous Distributed Multimedia Applications Group Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya on behalf of: W3C Media Annotations Working Group

  2. Introduction • W3C Web Video Group: to make video a "first class citizen" of the Web • Timed Text Working Group • Media Fragments Working Group • Media Annotations Working Group • Media Annotations Working Group (MAGW): to provide an ontology and API designed to facilitate cross-community data integration of information related to media objects in the Web, such as video, (audio and images). • M16031: Liaison Statement from W3C to MPEG (06/12/2008)

  3. Working policies • Meetings: • Weekly teleconference • Every 3 months approx., face to face meeting • Decisions:taken mostly by consensus • Participants: About 25 people from 13 organizations (both industry and university) • Patents: W3C seeks to issue Recommendations that can be implemented on a Royalty-Free basis

  4. MAGW Vision • User sees an API, simple • handling only texts and URI • (no special knowledge on • Semantic Web required) • An Ontology relates the • different metadata formats • (this is hidden to the user) • Mapping is provided by MAGW

  5. Some formats in sight • Formats: • XMP. This is the articulating base • DublinCore • ID3 (metadata in audio) • EXIF (metadata in images) • Media RSS • IPTC (news) • MPEG7 • TV-Anytime • FRBR (multilevel description) • Youtube Data API Protocol • Other: SMPTE, LOM, METS, Cablelabs ADI 2.0, MIX, VRA etc.

  6. Documents • Ontology for Media Object Use Cases and Requirements • Ontology for Media Object 1.0 • API for Media Object 1.0 • Other deliverables: • A W3C Working Group Note for mapping the ontology to existing standards and solutions. • Collection of a corpus of metadata to demonstrate the mapping and translation. • Implementation and interoperability reports. • Tutorial or primer resources (if suitable and if resources are available). • Propose eventually a new charter for follow on work. • 2.0 version pursues integration with other W3C recommendations (fragments etc.)

  7. Use Cases & Requirements (I) • W3C Working Draft 19 January 2009 • 9 use cases, 13 requirements • r01: Providing methods for getting structured or unstructured metadata out of media objects in different formats • r02: Providing methods for setting metadata in media objects in different formats • r03: Providing in the API a means for supporting structured annotations • r04: Providing a means to access custom metadata • r05: Providing the ontology as a simple set of properties

  8. Use Cases & Requirements (II) • Requirements (continued): • r06: Specifying an internal or external format for the ontology • r07: Introducing several abstraction levels in the ontology • r08: Being able to apply the ontology / API for collections of metadata • r09: Taking different roles in metadata processing into account • r10: Being able to describe fragments of media objects • r11: Providing the ontology in slices of conformance • r12: Provide support for controlled vocabularies for the values of different properties • r13: Allow for different return types for the same property

  9. MAGW & MXM Analysis • There is a joint set of desired features between: • MAGW API • MXM Video Metadata API (8.8 in N10290 MXM Architecture and Technologies) • Video metadata creation APIs  difficult to be achieved • Video metadata editing APIs  difficult to be achieved • Video metadata parsing APIs • Video metadata presentation APIs • However, “setting” methods much more complex to be implemented. • Timeline may be a problem

  10. Milestones • First Public Working Draft, Last Call WD, Candidate Recommendation, Proposed Recommendation, Recommendation. • August 2008: First teleconference

  11. More information • Chairs of W3C Media Annotation Working Group • Soohong Daniel Park (soohong.park@samsung.com) • Joakim Soderberg (joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com) • For more info, there is a public mailing list: • public-media-fragment@w3.org. • (about 500 messages exchanged from Aug.08) • Webpage: • http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/

  12. Presentation of theMedia Annotations Working Group February 2009 Lausanne, Switzerland THANKS! Questions?

More Related