Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 46, Issue 2–3, pp 307–329 | Cite as

VAMP: a service for validating MPEG-7 descriptions w.r.t. to formal profile definitions

  • Raphaël Troncy
  • Werner Bailer
  • Martin Höffernig
  • Michael Hausenblas


MPEG-7 can be used to create complex and comprehensive metadata descriptions of multimedia content. Since MPEG-7 is defined in terms of an XML schema, the semantics of its elements has no formal grounding. In addition, certain features can be described in multiple ways. MPEG-7 profiles are subsets of the standard that apply to specific application areas and that aim to reduce this syntactic variability, but they still lack formal semantics. We propose an approach for expressing the semantics explicitly by formalizing the constraints of various profiles using ontologies, logical rules and ad-hoc programming, thus enabling interoperability and automatic use for MPEG-7 based applications. We have implemented VAMP, a full semantic validation service that detects any inconsistencies of the semantic constraints formalized. Another contribution of this paper is an analysis of how MPEG-7 is practically used. We report on experiments about the semantic validity of MPEG-7 descriptions produced by numerous tools and projects and we categorize the most common errors found.


VAMP MPEG-7 semantic validation Semantic web application MPEG-7 profile ontology 



The authors would like to thank Alia Amin (CWI) for the design of the VAMP interface, Philip Hofmair and Rudolf Schlatte (JRS) for their help in the implementation of VAMP, and Lynda Hardman (CWI) for her feedback on earlier versions of this paper. The research leading to this paper was partially supported by the European Commission under the contracts FP6-027026, “Knowledge Space of semantic inference for automatic annotation and retrieval of multimedia content - K-Space”, IST-2-511316, “IP-RACINE: Integrated Project - Research Area CINE” and FP6-027122, “SALERO: Semantic AudiovisuaL Entertainment Reusable Objects”.


  1. 1.
    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’07). Busan, South Korea, pp 30–43Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Athanasiadis T, Tzouvaras V, Petridis K, Precioso F, Avrithis Y, Kompatsiaris Y (2005) Using a multimedia ontology infrastructure for semantic annotation of multimedia content. In: 5th International workshop on knowledge markup and semantic annotation (SemAnnot’05), Galway, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bailer W, Schallauer P (2006) The detailed audiovisual profile: enabling interoperability between MPEG-7 based systems. In: 12th International multimedia modelling conference (MMM’06). Beijing, China, pp 217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baral C, Gelfond M (1994) Logic programming and knowledge representation. J Log Program 19–20:73–148CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dean M, Schreiber G (2004) OWL Web ontology language: reference. W3C Recommendation.
  6. 6.
    Garcia R, Celma O (2005) Semantic integration and retrieval of multimedia metadata. In: 5th International workshop on knowledge markup and semantic annotation (SemAnnot’05). Galway, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hobbs JR, Pan F (2006) Time ontology in OWL. W3C working draft.
  8. 8.
    Höffernig M, Hausenblas M, Bailer W (2007) Semantics of temporal media content descriptions. In: Multimedia metadata applications workshop (M3A). Graz, Austria, pp 155–162Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hunter J (2001) Adding multimedia to the semantic web—building an MPEG-7 ontology. In: First international semantic web working symposium (SWWS’01), StanfordGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hunter J, Lagoze C (2001) Combining RDF and XML schemas to enhance interoperability between metadata application profiles. In: 10th International world wide web conference (WWW’01), Hong Kong, pp 457–466Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    International Organization for Standardization (2000) Representations of dates and times, 2nd edn. ISO 8601, 15 December 2000Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Manola F, Miller E (2004) RDF (Ressource Description Framework) Primer. W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004.
  13. 13.
    Motik B, Sattler U, Studer R (2005) Query answering for OWL-DL with rules. J Web Semantics 3(1):41–60Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    MPEG-7 (2001) Multimedia content description interface. ISO/IEC 15938Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    MPEG-7 (2005) Information technology—multimedia content description interface—Part 9: profiles and levels. ISO/IEC 15938-9:2005Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    MPF (2008) Metadata production framework specifications (v. 2.0.2E). Technical report, NHK science and technical research laboratories.
  17. 17.
    Nack F, van Ossenbruggen J, Hardman L (2005) That obscure object of desire: multimedia metadata on the web (Part II). IEEE Multimed 12(1):54–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Patel-Schneider PF, Hayes P, Horrocks I (2004) OWL web ontology language: semantics and abstract syntax. W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004.
  19. 19.
    Pereira F (2001) MPEG-7 requirements document v.16. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11/N4510. Pattaya, ThailandGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pfeiffer S, Srinivasan U (2000) TV anytime as an application scenario for MPEG-7. In: Workshop on standards, interoperability and practice, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Troncy R (2003) Integrating structure and semantics into audio-visual documents. In: 2nd International semantic web conference (ISWC’03), Sanibel Island, pp 566–581Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Troncy R, Bailer W, Hausenblas M, Hofmair P, Schlatte R (2006) Enabling multimedia metadata interoperability by defining formal semantics of MPEG-7 profiles. In: 1st International conference on semantics and digital media technology (SAMT’06), Athens, pp 41–55Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Troncy R, Carrive J, Lalande S, Poli J-P (2004) A motivating scenario for designing an extensible audio-visual description language. In: The international workshop on multidisciplinary image, video, and audio retrieval and mining (CoRIMedia), SherbrookeGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tsinaraki C, Polydoros P, Christodoulakis S (2004) Interoperability support for Ontology-based video retrieval applications. In: 3rd International conference on image and video retrieval (CIVR’04), DublinGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Ossenbruggen J, Nack F, Hardman L (2004) That obscure object of desire: multimedia metadata on the web (Part I). IEEE Multimed 11(4):38–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    XML Schema (2001) W3C Recommendation, 2 May 2001.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raphaël Troncy
    • 1
    • 2
  • Werner Bailer
    • 3
  • Martin Höffernig
    • 3
  • Michael Hausenblas
    • 4
  1. 1.EURECOMSophia-AntipolisFrance
  2. 2.CWISJ AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Joanneum Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbHInstitute of Information SystemsGrazAustria
  4. 4.Digital Enterprise Research InstituteNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations