Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 7–26 | Cite as

Semantic media decision taking using N3logic

  • Wim Van Lancker
  • Davy Van Deursen
  • Ruben Verborgh
  • Rik Van de Walle


In this paper, we introduce a media decision taking engine (MDTE), enabling the automatic selection and/or rating of multimedia content versions, based on the available context information. The presented approach is fully semantic-driven, which means that we not only semantically model the context information, but also the decision algorithms themselve, which are represented in N3 Rules, a rule language that extends RDF. The decision rules are based on a rating function, supporting the specification of weights and affinity parameters for each environment property. Finally, we show how the MDTE is integrated in a media delivery platform, using the provisions of the existing Web infrastructure.


Decision taking Media selection N3Logic RDF Rules 



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.
    Bamasak O (2011) Exploring consumers acceptance of mobile payments? An empirical study. Int J Inf Technol, Communications and Convergence 1:173–185Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berners-Lee T, Connolly D, Kagal L, Scharf Y, Hendler J (2008) N3Logic: a logical framework for the world wide web. Theory Pract Log Program 8(3):249–269MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berners-Lee T, Hendler J, Lassila O (2001) The semantic web. Sci Am 284(5):34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Roo J (2012) Euler proof mechanism. Accessed 12 Feb 2012
  5. 5.
    De Roo J (2010) Eye deep taxonomy benchmark results. Accessed 12 Feb 2012
  6. 6.
    Fielding R, Gettys J, Mogul J, Frystyk H, Masinter L, Leach P, Berners-Lee T (1999) RFC 2616: “Hypertext Transfer Protocol—HTTP/1.1.” Accessed 12 Feb 2012
  7. 7.
    Gearon P, Passant A, Polleres A (eds) (2011) SPARQL 1.1 Update. W3C Working Draft. World Wide Web ConsortiumGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herranz L (2007) Integrating semantic analysis and scalable video coding for efficient content-based adaptation. Multimedia Syst 13:103–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hutter A, Amon P, Panis G, Delfosse E, Ransburg M, Hellwagner H (2005) Automatic adaptation of streaming multimedia content in a dynamic and distributed environment. In: Proceedings of IEEE International conference on image processing (ICIP 2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO/IEC (2004) 21000-7:2004 Information technology—Multimedia framework (MPEG-21)—Part 7: Digital item adaptationGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klyne G, Carrol JJ (2004) Resource description framework (RDF): concepts and abstract syntax. W3C RecommendationGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klyuev V, Oleshchuk V (2011) Semantic retrieval: an approach to representing, searching and summarising text documents. Int J Inf Technol, Communications and Convergence 1:221–234Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Köhncke B, Balke W-T (2007) Preference-driven personalization for flexible digital item adaptation. Multimedia Syst 13:119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee W, Bailer W, Bürger T, Malaisé V, Michel T, Sasaki F, Söderberg J, Stegmaier F, Strassner J (eds) (2011) Ontology for media resources 1.0. W3C working draft. World wide web consortiumGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liang W-Y, Lai P-T, Chiou CW (2010) An energy conservation dvfs algorithm for the android operating system. Int J Inf Technol, Communications and Convergence 1:93–100Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    López F, Martínez JM, García N (2011) A model for preference-driven multimedia adaptation decision-making in the MPEG-21 framework. Multimed Tools Appl 53:181–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lum WY, Lau FCM (2002) A context-aware decision engine for content adaptation. IEEE Pervasive Computing 1:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McGuinness D, van Harmelen F (eds) (2004) OWL Web ontology language: overview. W3C recommendation. World wide web consortiumGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    Osmun T (2010) Euler eye installation, demo, and deep taxonomy benchmark. Accessed 12 Feb 2012
  21. 21.
    Prangl M, Szkaliczki T, Hellwagner H (2007) A Framework for Utility-based Multimedia Adaptation. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 17(6):719–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Szwabe A, Schorr A, Hauck J, Kassler A (2006) Dynamic multimedia stream adaptation and rate control for heterogeneous networks. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A 7:63–69zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Troncy R, Mannens E, Pfeiffer S, Van Deursen D (eds) (2011) Media fragments URI 1.0. W3C working draft. World Wide Web ConsortiumGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van Deursen D, Van Lancker W, De Bruyne S, De Neve W, Mannens E, Van de Walle R (2010) Format-independent and metadata-driven media resource adaptation using semantic web technologies. Multimedia Syst 16(2):85–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van Deursen D, Van Lancker W, De Neve W, Paridaens W, Mannens E, Van de Walle R (2010) NinSuna: a fully integrated platform for format-independent multimedia content adaptation and delivery based on semantic web technologies. Multimed Tools Appl – Special issue on data semantics for multimedia systems 46(2–3):371–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van Deursen D, Van Lancker W, Van de Walle R (2010) On media delivery protocols in the web. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo 2010. Singapore, pp 1028–1033Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van Lancker W, Van Deursen D, Mannens E, Van de Walle R (2011) Harmonizing media annotations and media fragments. In: Proceedings of the 2011 workshop on multimedia on the web. Graz, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vetro A, Christopoulos C, Ebrahimi T (2003) Universal multimedia access. IEEE Signal Process Mag 20(2):16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wireless Application Protocol Forum (2001) UAProf user agent profiling specification. Accessed 12 Feb 2012

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wim Van Lancker
    • 1
  • Davy Van Deursen
    • 1
  • Ruben Verborgh
    • 1
  • Rik Van de Walle
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electronics and Information Systems – Multimedia LabGhent University – IBBTLedeberg-GhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations