Collaborative Movie Annotation

  • Damon Daylamani Zad
  • Harry AgiusEmail author


In this paper, we focus on metadata for self-created movies like those found on YouTube and Google Video, the duration of which are increasing in line with falling upload restrictions. While simple tags may have been sufficient for most purposes for traditionally very short video footage that contains a relatively small amount of semantic content, this is not the case for movies of longer duration which embody more intricate semantics. Creating metadata is a time-consuming process that takes a great deal of individual effort; however, this effort can be greatly reduced by harnessing the power of Web 2.0 communities to create, update and maintain it. Consequently, we consider the annotation of movies within Web 2.0 environments, such that users create and share that metadata collaboratively and propose an architecture for collaborative movie annotation. This architecture arises from the results of an empirical experiment where metadata creation tools, YouTube and an MPEG-7 modelling tool, were used by users to create movie metadata. The next section discusses related work in the areas of collaborative retrieval and tagging. Then, we describe the experiments that were undertaken on a sample of 50 users. Next, the results are presented which provide some insight into how users interact with existing tools and systems for annotating movies. Based on these results, the paper then develops an architecture for collaborative movie annotation.


Video Content Inanimate Object Content Category Video Scene Metadata Scheme 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research is supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, grant no. EP/E034578/1.


  1. 1.
    J.J. Jung, “Social grid platform for collaborative online learning on blogosphere: A case study of eLearning@BlogGrid,” Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, No. 2, Part 1, 2009, pp. 2177-2186.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. Del Conte, “Can eyeOS Succeed Where Failed?,” TechCrunch, 27 November 2006. < > .
  3. 3.
    J.P. Zappen, T.M. Harrison, and D. Watson, “A new paradigm for designing e-government: web 2.0 and experience design,” in Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on Digital government research, 2008, pp. 17-26.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W. Chen, J. Chen, and Q. Li, “Adaptive community-based multimedia data retrieval in a distributed environment,” in Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Ubiquitous information management and communication, 2008, pp. 20-24.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Boll, “MultiTube–Where Web 2.0 and Multimedia Could Meet,” IEEE MultiMedia, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2007, pp. 9-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D.N. Milne, “Exploiting web 2.0 for all knowledge-based information retrieval,” in Proceedings of the ACM first Ph.D. workshop in Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM), 2007, pp. 69-76.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Chen, F. Wang, and C. Zhang, “Collaborative filtering using orthogonal nonnegative matrix tri-factorization,” Information Processing & Management, In Press, Corrected Proof, 2009.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.-M. Yang and K.F. Li, “Recommendation based on rational inferences in collaborative filtering,” Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2009, pp. 105-114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Buffa, F. Gandon, G. Ereteo, P. Sander, and C. Faron, “SweetWiki: A semantic wiki,” Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2008, pp. 84-97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R.A. Negoescu and D. Gatica-Perez, “Analyzing Flickr groups,” in Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on Content-based image and video retrieval, 2008, pp. 417-426.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Naaman and R. Nair, “ZoneTag’s Collaborative Tag Suggestions: What is This Person Doing in My Phone?,” IEEE MultiMedia, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2008, pp. 34-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. Nowack, “CONFOTO: Browsing and annotating conference photos on the Semantic web,” Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, Vol. 4, No. 4, 2006, pp. 263-266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. Bentley, C. Metcalf, and G. Harboe, “Personal vs. commercial content: the similarities between consumer use of photos and music,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems, 2006, pp. 667-676.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Yamamoto, T. Masuda, S. Ohira, and K. Nagao, “Video Scene Annotation Based on Web Social Activities,” IEEE MultiMedia, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2008, pp. 22-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    T. Volkmer, J.R. Smith, and A. Natsev, “A web-based system for collaborative annotation of large image and video collections: an evaluation and user study,” in Proceedings of the 13th annual ACM international conference on Multimedia, 2005, pp. 892-901.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Ulges, C. Schulze, D. Keysers, and T. Breuel, A System That Learns to Tag Videos by Watching YouTube, in Computer Vision Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5008, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 415-424.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    B. Elliott and Z.M. Ozsoyoglu, “Annotation suggestion and search for personal multimedia objects on the web,” in Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on Content-based image and video retrieval, 2008, pp. 75-84.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Q. Li and S.C.Y. Lu, “Collaborative Tagging Applications and Approaches,” IEEE MultiMedia, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2008, pp. 14-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    H. Agius and M. Angelides, “MPEG-7 in action: end user experiences with COSMOS-7 front end systems,” in Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC ’06), Vol. 2, 2006, pp. 1348-1355.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Angelides and H. Agius, “An MPEG-7 scheme for semantic content modelling and filtering of digital video,” Multimedia Systems, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2006, pp. 320-339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. Corbin and A. Strauss, “Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory,” 3rd ed., Sage Publications, 2008.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. Goulding, “Grounded theory: the missing methodology on the interpretivist agenda,” Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1998, pp. 50-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    K. Charmaz, “Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis,” Sage Publications, 2006.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. Matavire and I. Brown, “Investigating the use of “Grounded Theory” in information systems research,” in Proceedings of the 2008 annual research conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT research in developing countries: riding the wave of technology, 2008, pp. 139-147.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information SystemsComputing and Mathematics Brunel UniversityUxbridgeUK

Personalised recommendations