OntoLog: Temporal Annotation Using Ad Hoc Ontologies and Application Profiles

  • Jon Heggland
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2458)


This paper describes OntoLog, a prototype annotation system for temporal media. It is a Java application built to explore the issues and benefits of using ontologies, application profiles and RDF for temporal annotation. It uses an annotation scheme based on hierarchical ontologies, and an RDF-based data model that may be adapted and extended through the use of RDF Schema. Dublin Core is used as a default description scheme. The paper also describes an ontology-based logging interface and annotation visualisation, and a webbased searching and browsing system.


Digital Library Resource Description Framework Annotation Scheme Media Object Uniform Resource Identifier 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Correia, N. and T. Chambel. Active Video Watching using Annotation. in The seventh ACN international conference on Multimedia. 1999. Orlando, FL USA.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mele, F. and G. Minei, Digital Video Management for Heterogeneous and Distributed Resources. IEEE Multimedia, 2001. 8(3): p. 30–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chua, T.-S., L. Chen, and J. Wang, Stratification Approach to Modeling Video. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 2002. 16(1/2): p. 79–97.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weher, K. and A. Poon. Marquee: A Tool For Real-Time Video Logging. in Human factors in computing systems: “celebrating interdependence“. 1994. Boston, MA USA.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carrer, M., et al., An Annotation Engine for Supporting Video Database Population,. 1996, Multimedia Communications Laboratory, Boston University: Boston.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hunter, J. and R. Iannella. The Application of Metadata Standards to Video Indexing. in European Conference on Digital Libraries. 1998. Crete.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohen, J., M. Withgott, and P. Piernot. Logjam: a tangible multi-person interface for video logging. in CHI 99 conference on human factors in computing systems. 1999. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hunter, J. and D. James. The Application of an Event-Aware Metadata Model to an Oral History Project. in European Conference on Digital Libraries. 2000. Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lassila, O. and R.R. Swick, Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification, The World Wide Web Consortium 1999.
  10. 10.
    Brickley, D. and R.V. Guha, Resource Description Framework (RDF) Schema Specification 1.0, The World Wide Web Consortium 2000.
  11. 11.
    Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster’s Online Collegiate Dictionary, com/dictionary.htm. 1998.
  12. 12.
    Monaco, J., How to Read a Film. 1981: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arman, F., et al. Content-based Browsing of Video Sequences. in ACM Multimedia. 1994. San Francisco, USA: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Foote, J., et al. An intelligent media browser using automatic multimodal analysis. in ACM Multimedia. 1998. Bristol, UK: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hindus, D., C. Schmandt, and C. Horner, Capturing, Structuring and Representing Ubiquitous Audio. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 1993. 11(4): p. 376–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Arons, B., SpeechSkimmer: A System for Interactively Skimming Recorded Speech. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 1997. 4(1): p. 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Whittaker, S., et al., Jotmail: a voicemail interface that enables you to see what was said, in CHI Letters. 2000. p. 89–96.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Berners-Lee, T., et al., Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax, 1998.
  19. 19.
    Weibel, S., Metadata: The Foundations of Resource Description, in D-Lib Magazine. 1995.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    DCMI, Dublin Core Element Set, Version 1.1-Reference Description, 1999.
  21. 21.
    Heery, R. and M. Patel, Application profiles: mixing and matching metadata schemas, in Ariadne. 2000.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baker, T., et al., What terms does your metadata use? Application profiles as machineunderstandable narratives. Journal of Digital Information, 2001. 2(2).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hunter, J. and C. Lagoze. Combining RDF and XML Schemas to Enhance Interoperability Between Metadata Application Profiles. in WWW10. 2001. Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hunter, J. and J. Newmarch. An Indexing, Browsing, Search and Retrieval System for Audiovisual Libraries. in European Conference on Digital Libraries. 1999. Paris, France.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weinstein, P.C. Ontology-Based Metadata: Transforming the MARC Legacy. in ACM Digital Libraries. 1998. Pittsburgh, USA.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    McBride, B., Jena: Implementing the RDF Model and Syntax Specification, 2000.
  27. 27.
    Ayars, J., et al., Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL 2.0), The World Wide Web Consortium 2001.
  28. 28.
    Skou, C.V., Qualitative Media Analyzer, 2002.
  29. 29.
    Harmelen, F.v., P.F. Patel-Schneider, and I. Horrocks, Reference Description of the DAML+OIL (March 2001) Ontology Markup Language, 2001.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hauglid, J.O. and R. Midtstraum. SESAM— Searching Supported by Analysis of Metadata. in ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. 2002. Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jon Heggland
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations