Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 46, Issue 2–3, pp 371–398 | Cite as

NinSuna: a fully integrated platform for format-independent multimedia content adaptation and delivery using Semantic Web technologies

  • Davy Van DeursenEmail author
  • Wim Van Lancker
  • Wesley De Neve
  • Tom Paridaens
  • Erik Mannens
  • Rik Van de Walle


The current multimedia landscape is characterized by a significant heterogeneity in terms of coding and delivery formats, usage environments, and user preferences. The main contribution of this paper is a discussion of the design and functioning of a fully integrated platform for multimedia adaptation and delivery, called NinSuna. This platform is able to efficiently deal with the aforementioned heterogeneity in the present-day multimedia ecosystem, thanks to the use of format-agnostic adaptation engines (i.e., engines independent of the underlying coding format) and format-agnostic packaging engines (i.e., engines independent of the underlying delivery format). Moreover, NinSuna also provides a seamless integration between metadata standards and adaptation processes. Both our format-independent adaptation and packaging techniques rely on a model for multimedia bitstreams, describing the structural, semantic, and scalability properties of these multimedia streams. News sequences were used as a test case for our platform, enabling the user to select news fragments matching his/her specific interests and usage environment characteristics.


BSDL Format-independent Multimedia adaptation Multimedia delivery Multimedia model Semantic Web XML 



The research activities as described in this paper were funded by Ghent University, the Interdisciplinary Institute for Broadband Technology (IBBT), the Institute for the Promotion of Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT), the Fund for Scientific Research-Flanders (FWO-Flanders), and the European Union.


  1. 1.
    Amielh M, Devillers S (2001) Multimedia content adaptation with XML. In: Proceedings of 8th international conference on multimedia modeling, Amsterdam, pp 127–145Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amielh M, Devillers S (2002) Bitstream syntax description language: application of XML-schema to multimedia content adaptation. In: Proceedings of 11th international world wide web conference, Honolulu, Hawaii.
  3. 3.
    Arndt R, Troncy R, Staab S, Hardman L, Vacura M (2007) COMM: designing a well-founded multimedia ontology for the web. In: 6th international semantic web conference (ISWC 2007), BusanGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christopoulos C, Skodras A, Ebrahimi T (2000) The JPEG2000 still image coding system: an overview. IEEE Trans Consumer Electron 46(4):1103–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clark K, Feigenbaum L, Torres E (eds) (2008) SPARQL Protocol for RDF. W3C Recommendation. World Wide Web ConsortiumGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Neve W, Van Deursen D, De Schrijver D, De Wolf K, Van de Walle R (2005) Using bitstream structure descriptions for the exploitation of multi-layered temporal scalability in H.264/AVC‘s base specification. Lect Notes Comput Sci 3768:641–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Decker S, Melnik S, van Harmelen F, Fensel D, Klein MCA, Broekstra J, Erdmann M, Horrocks I (2000) The semantic web: the roles of XML and RDF. IEEE Internet Computing 4(5):63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Devillers S, Timmerer C, Heuer J, Hellwagner H (2005) Bitstream syntax description-based adaptation in streaming and constrained environments. IEEE Trans Multimedia 7(3):463–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (2004) Dublin core metadata element set, version 1.1: reference description. Technical report, Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
  10. 10.
    Eleftheriadis A (1997) Flavor: a language for media representation. In: Proceedings of ACM multimedia conference, Seattle, WA, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hannuksela MM, Wang Y-K, Gabbouj M (2004) Isolated regions in video coding. IEEE Trans Multimedia 6:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hong D, Eleftheriadis A (2008) XFlavor: providing XML features in media representation. Multimedia Tools and Applications 39(1):101–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ISO/IEC (2003) 15938-5:2003 information technology—multimedia content description interface—part 5: multimedia description schemesGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO/IEC (2004) 14496-14:2003 Information technology—Coding of Audio, Picture, Multimedia and Hypermedia Information—Part 14: MP4 file formatGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO/IEC (2004) 21000-7:2004 information technology—multimedia framework (MPEG-21)—part 7: digital item adaptationGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO/IEC (2007) 21000-18:2007 information technology—multimedia framework (MPEG-21)—part 18: digital item streamingGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO/IEC (2007) Information technology—multimedia framework (MPEG-21)—part 7: digital item adaptation, amendment 2: dynamic and distributed adaptation. ISO/IEC 21000-7:2007/FPDAmd 2Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO/IEC (2008) 23000-5: information technology—MPEG-B systems technologies part 5: bitstream syntax description language (BSDL)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO/IEC JTC 1 (1993) Information technology—coding of moving pictures and associated audio for digital storage media at up to about 1,5 Mbit/s—part 3: audio. ISO/IEC 11172-3:1993Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO/IEC JTC 1 (2000) Information technology—generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio information: video. ISO/IEC 13818-2:2000Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ISO/IEC JTC 1 (2005) Information technology—coding of audio-visual objects—part 3: audio. ISO/IEC 14496-3:2005Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    ITU-T and ISO/IEC JTC 1 (2003) Advanced video coding for generic audiovisual services. ITU-T Rec. H.264 and ISO/IEC 14496-10 AVCGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Klyne G, Carroll JJ (eds) (2004) Resource description framework (RDF): concepts and abstract syntax. W3C Recommendation. World Wide Web ConsortiumGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McGuinness D, van Harmelen F (eds) (2004) OWL web ontology language: overview. W3C Recommendation. World Wide Web ConsortiumGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mukherjee D, Delfosse E, Kim J-G, Wang Y (2005) Optimal adaptation decision-taking for terminal and network quality-of-service. IEEE Trans Multimedia 7(3):454–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ohm J-R (2005) Advances in scalable video coding. Proc IEEE 93(1):42–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Panis G, Hutter A, Heuer J, Hellwagner H, Kosch H, Timmerer C, Devillers S, Amielh M (2003) Bitstream syntax description: a tool for multimedia resource adaptation within MPEG-21. Signal Process, Image Commun 18(8):721–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pfeiffer S, Parker C, Schremmer C (2003) Annodex: a simple architecture to enable hyperlinking, search & retrieval of time continuous data on the web. In: MIR ’03: proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGMM international workshop on multimedia information retrieval, Berkeley, pp 87–93Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Prud’hommeaux E, Seaborne A (eds) (2007) SPARQL query language for RDF. W3C Recommendation. World Wide Web ConsortiumGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ransburg M, Devillers S, Timmerer C, Hellwagner H (2007) Processing and delivery of multimedia metadata for multimedia content streaming. In: Proceedings of 6th workshop on multimedia semantics—the role of metadata. Aachen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    RFC 3550 (2003) RTP: a transport protocol for real-time applications.
  32. 32.
    RFC 2326 (1998) Real time streaming protocol.
  33. 33.
    RFC 2616 (1999) Hypertext transfer protocol—HTTP/1.1.
  34. 34.
    RFC 3984 (2005) RTP payload format for H.264 video.
  35. 35.
    RFC 2327 (1998) SDP: session description protocol.
  36. 36.
    Schwarz H, Marpe D, Wiegand T (2007) Overview of the scalable video coding extension of the H.264/AVC standard. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 17(9):1103–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    SMPTE (2004) Material exchange format (MXF)—file format specification (Standard). SMPTE 377M-2004Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Srinivasan S, Tu C, Regunathan SL, Sullivan GJ (2007) HD photo: a new image coding technology for digital photography. In: Proceedings of the SPIE, vol 6696, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    SUMO (2009) Suggested upper merged ontology.
  40. 40.
    Thomas-Kerr J, Burnett I, Ritz C (2008) Format-independent rich media delivery using the bitstream binding language. IEEE Trans Multimedia 10(3):514–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Van Deursen D, De Bruyne S, Van Lancker W, De Neve W, Hellwagner H, Van de Walle R (2007) MuMiVA: a multimedia delivery platform using format-agnostic, XML-driven content adaptation. In: Proceedings of the 9th international symposium on multimedia, Taichung, pp 131–138Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vetro A, Christopoulos C, Ebrahimi T (2003) Universal multimedia access. IEEE Signal Process Mag 20(2):16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    W3C Multimedia Semantics Incubator Group (2006) Incubator Activity > W3C Multimedia Semantics Incubator Group.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davy Van Deursen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wim Van Lancker
    • 1
  • Wesley De Neve
    • 1
  • Tom Paridaens
    • 1
  • Erik Mannens
    • 1
  • Rik Van de Walle
    • 1
  1. 1.Departement of Electronics and Information Systems—Multimedia LabGhent University—IBBTLedeberg-GhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations