Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 691–715 | Cite as

A URI-based approach for addressing fragments of media resources on the Web

  • Erik Mannens
  • Davy Van Deursen
  • Raphaël Troncy
  • Silvia Pfeiffer
  • Conrad Parker
  • Yves Lafon
  • Jack Jansen
  • Michael Hausenblas
  • Rik Van de Walle


To make media resources a prime citizen on the Web, we have to go beyond simply replicating digital media files. The Web is based on hyperlinks between Web resources, and that includes hyperlinking out of resources (e.g., from a word or an image within a Web page) as well as hyperlinking into resources (e.g., fragment URIs into Web pages). To turn video and audio into hypervideo and hyperaudio, we need to enable hyperlinking into and out of them. The W3C Media Fragments Working Group is taking on the challenge to further embrace W3C’s mission to lead the World Wide Web to its full potential by developing a Media Fragment protocol and guidelines that ensure the long-term growth of the Web. The major contribution of this paper is the introduction of Media Fragments as a media-format independent, standard means of addressing media resources using URIs. Moreover, we explain how the HTTP protocol can be used and extended to serve Media Fragments and what the impact is for current Web-enabled media formats.


Media fragments W3C standardisation HTML5 



The authors would like to thank the other W3C Media Fragments’ participants: Eric Carlson (Apple, Inc.), Thierry Michel (W3C/ERCIM), Guillaume Olivrin (Meraka Institute, South Africa), Soohong Daniel Park (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.), David Singer (Apple, Inc.), Philip Jägenstedt (Opera Software) for their willingness to discuss the definition of media fragments and more generally their adequacy within the Web architecture. The research activities that have been described in this paper were partially funded by W3C/ERCIM, Ghent University, 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), the French Ministry of Industry (Innovative Web call) under contract, EURECOM, CWI, Kyoto University, National University of Ireland, Mozilla Corporation, and the European Union within the 7th framework program (FP7/2007-2013) under agreement ICT-2007-214793.


  1. 1.
    Bulterman D, Grassel G, Jansen J, Koivisto A, Layaïda N, Michel T, Mullender S, Zucker D (eds) (2005) Synchronized multimedia integration language (SMIL 2.1). W3C recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium. Available at
  2. 2.
    De Schrijver D, De Neve W, Van Deursen D, De Bruyne S, Van de Walle R (2006) Exploitation of interactive region of interest scalability in scalable video coding by using an XML-driven adaptation framework. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on automated production of cross media content for multi-channel distribution, pp 223–231. Leeds, UKGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    EBU/ETSI (2008) ETSI TS 102 822-3-1: TV-anytime—part 3: metadata. Available at
  4. 4.
    Ferraiolo J, Jackson D (eds) (2009) Scalable vector graphics (SVG) 1.1 specification. W3C recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium. Available at
  5. 5.
    Hannuksela MM, Wang YK, Gabbouj M (2004) Isolated regions in video coding. IEEE Trans Multimedia 6:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hausenblas M, Troncy R, Burger T, Raimond Y (2009) Interlinking multimedia: how to apply linked data principles to multimedia fragments. In: Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on linked data on the Web (LDOW’09). Madrid, SpainGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hickson I, Hyatt D (eds) (2010) HTML5—a vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML. W3C working draft. World Wide Web Consortium. Available at
  8. 8.
    Internet Engineering Task Force (199) RFC 2616: hypertext transfer protocol—HTTP/1.1. Available at
  9. 9.
    Internet Engineering Task Force (2005) RFC 3986: uniform resource identifier (URI)—generic syntax. Available at
  10. 10.
    ISO/IEC (2002) Information technology—multimedia content description interface—part 1: systems. ISO/IEC 15938-1:2002Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO/IEC (2003) Information technology—coding of audio, picture, multimedia and hypermedia information—part 14: MP4 file format. ISO/IEC 14496-14:2003Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO/IEC (2005) Information technology—coding of audio-visual objects—part 12: ISO base media file format. ISO/IEC 14496-12:2005Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ISO/IEC (2005) Information technology—coding of audio-visual objects—part 3: audio. ISO/IEC 14496-3:2005Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO/IEC (2006) Information technology—coding of audio-visual objects—part 17: streaming text format. ISO/IEC 14496-17:2006Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO/IEC (2006) Information technology—MPEG-21, part 17: fragment identification of MPEG resources. ISO/IEC 21000-17:2006Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ITU-T and ISO/IEC (2003) Advanced video coding for generic audiovisual services. ITU-T Rec. H.264 and ISO/IEC 14496-10 AVCGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lambert P, De Schrijver D, Van Deursen D, De Neve W, Dhondt Y, Van de Walle R (2006) A real-time content adaptation framework for exploiting ROI scalability in H.264/AVC. In: Blanc-Talon J, Philips W, Popescu D, Scheunders P (eds) Advanced concepts for intelligent vision systems. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4179. Springer, Berlin, pp 442–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mannens E, Troncy R (eds) (2009) Use cases and requirements for media fragments. W3C working draft. World Wide Web Consortium. Available at
  19. 19.
    Mannens E, Troncy R, Pfeiffer S, Van Deursen D (eds) (2010) Media fragments URI 1.0. W3C working draft. World Wide Web Consortium. Available at
  20. 20.
    Pfeiffer S (2003) RFC 3533: The Ogg encapsulation format version 0. Available at
  21. 21.
    Pfeiffer S (2007) Architecture of a video web—experience with annodex. In: Proceedings of the W3C video on the Web workshop. Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pfeiffer S, Parker C, Pang A (2005) Internet draft: specifying time intervals in URI queries and fragments of time-based Web resources. Available at
  23. 23.
    Raggett D, Le Hors A, Jacobs I (eds) (1999) HyperText markup language (HTML) 4.01—specification. W3C recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium. Available at
  24. 24.
    Schulzrinne H, Rao A, Lanphier R (1998) RFC 2326: real time streaming protocol. Available at
  25. 25.
    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
  26. 26.
    Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (2004) SMPTE RP 136: time and control codes for 24, 25 or 30 frame-per-second motion—picture systems. Available at
  27. 27.
    The WebM Project (2010) VP8 data format and decoding guide. Available at
  28. 28.
    The WebM Project (2010) WebM multimedia container guidelines. Available at
  29. 29.
    Troncy R, Hardman L, Van Ossenbruggen J, Hausenblas M (2007) Identifying spatial and temporal media fragments on the Web. In: Proceedings of the W3C video on the Web workshop. Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van Deursen D, Troncy R, Mannens E, Pfeiffer S, Lafon Y, Van de Walle R (2010) Implementing the media fragments URI specification. In: Proceedings of the 19th international World Wide Web conference (WWW), pp 1361–1363. Raleigh, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    W3C Media Fragments Working Group (2010) Media fragments working group. Available at
  32. 32. Foundation (2009) Theora specification. Available at
  33. 33. Foundation (2010) Vorbis I specification. Available at

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Mannens
    • 1
  • Davy Van Deursen
    • 1
  • Raphaël Troncy
    • 2
  • Silvia Pfeiffer
    • 3
  • Conrad Parker
    • 4
  • Yves Lafon
    • 5
  • Jack Jansen
    • 6
  • Michael Hausenblas
    • 7
  • Rik Van de Walle
    • 1
  1. 1.ELIS—Multimedia LabGhent University—IBBTGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Multimedia Communications DepartmentEURECOMSophia AntipolisFrance
  3. 3.VquenceSydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Kyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  5. 5.W3C/ERCIMSophia AntipolisFrance
  6. 6.Distributed Multimedia Languages and InfrastructuresCWIAmsterdamNetherlands
  7. 7.Digital Enterprise Research Institute—LiDRCNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations