Advertisement

Enabling Multimedia Metadata Interoperability by Defining Formal Semantics of MPEG-7 Profiles

  • Raphaël Troncy
  • Werner Bailer
  • Michael Hausenblas
  • Philip Hofmair
  • Rudolf Schlatte
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4306)

Abstract

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 have 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, which can be used to reduce this syntactic variability, but they still lack formal semantics. In this paper, we propose an approach for expressing semantics explicitly by formalizing the semantic constraints of a profile using ontologies and rules, thus enabling interoperability and automatic use for MPEG-7 based applications. We demonstrate the feasibility of the approach by implementing a validation service for a subset of the semantic constraints of the Detailed Audiovisual Profile (DAVP).

Keywords

Description Logic Multimedia Content Formal Semantic Semantic Constraint Description Tool 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bailer, W., Schallauer, P.: The Detailed Audiovisual Profile: Enabling Interoperability between MPEG-7 based Systems. In: 12th International MultiMedia Modelling Conference (MMM 2006), Beijing, China, pp. 217–224 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bailer, W., Schallauer, P., Hausenblas, M., Thallinger, G.: MPEG-7 Based Description Infrastructure for an Audiovisual Content Analysis and Retrieval System. In: Proceedings of SPIE - Storage and Retrieval Methods and Applications for Multimedia, San Jose, California, USA, pp. 284–295 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A.: AL-log: Integrating Datalog and Description Logics. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 10(3), 227–252 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garcia, R., Celma, O.: Semantic Integration and Retrieval of Multimedia Metadata. In: 5th International Workshop on Knowledge Markup and Semantic Annotation (SemAnnot 2005), Galway, Ireland (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grosof, B., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description Logic Programs: Combining Logic Programs with Description Logics. In: 12th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2003), Budapest, Hungary (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Bechhofer, S., Tsarkov, D.: OWL rules: A proposal and prototype implementation. Journal of Web Semantics 3(1), 23–40 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML. Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium (May 2004), http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/
  8. 8.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., van Harmelen, F.: From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics 1(1), 7–26 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hunter, J.: Adding Multimedia to the Semantic Web - Building an MPEG-7 Ontology. In: First International Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS 2001), Stanford, California, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hunter, J., Lagoze, C.: Combining RDF and XML Schemas to Enhance Interoperability Between Metadata Application Profiles. In: 10th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2001), Hong Kong, pp. 457–466 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hunter, J., Nack, F.: An overview of the MPEG-7 Description Definition Language (DDL) proposals. Signal Processing: Image Communication 16(1-2), 271–293 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levy, A.Y., Rousset, M.-C.: Combining horn rules and description logics in carin. Artificial Intelligence 104(1-2), 165–209 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    MPEG-7. Multimedia Content Description Interface. Standard No. ISO/IEC n° 15938 (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nack, F., van Ossenbruggen, J., Hardman, L.: That Obscure Object of Desire: Multimedia Metadata on the Web (Part II). IEEE Multimedia 12(1) (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    OWL. Web Ontology Language Reference. W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
  16. 16.
    Pereira, F.: MPEG-7 Requirements Document V.16. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11/N4510. Pattaya, Thailand (December 2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    RDF. Ressource Description Framework Primer. W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/
  18. 18.
    Troncy, R.: Integrating Structure and Semantics into Audio-visual Documents. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K.P., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 566–581. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Troncy, R., Carrive, J.: A Reduced Yet Extensible Audio-Visual Description Language: How to Escape From the MPEG-7 Bottleneck. In: 4th ACM Symposium on Document Engineering (DocEng 2004), Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tsinaraki, C., Polydoros, P., Christodoulakis, S.: Interoperability support for Ontology-based Video Retrieval Applications. In: Enser, P.G.B., Kompatsiaris, Y., O’Connor, N.E., Smeaton, A.F., Smeulders, A.W.M. (eds.) CIVR 2004. LNCS, vol. 3115, pp. 582–591. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van Ossenbruggen, J., Nack, F., Hardman, L.: That Obscure Object of Desire: Multimedia Metadata on the Web (Part I). IEEE Multimedia 11(4) (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    XML Schema. W3C Recommendation (May 2, 2001), http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raphaël Troncy
    • 1
  • Werner Bailer
    • 2
  • Michael Hausenblas
    • 2
  • Philip Hofmair
    • 2
  • Rudolf Schlatte
    • 2
  1. 1.CWI AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH, Institute of Information Systems and Information ManagementGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations