Personalized Multimedia Web Services in Peer to Peer Networks Using MPEG-7 and MPEG-21 Standards

  • Emmanouil Skondras
  • Angelos Michalas
  • Malamati Louta
  • George Kouzas
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 418)


Multimedia information has been increased in the recent years while new content delivery services enhanced with personalization functionalities are provided to users. Several standards are proposed for the representation and retrieval of multimedia content. This paper makes an overview of the available standards and technologies. Furthermore a prototype semantic P2P architecture is presented which delivers personalized audio information. The metadata which support personalization are separated in two categories: the metadata describing user preferences stored at each user and the resource adaptation metadata stored at the P2P network’s web services. The multimedia models MPEG-21 and MPEG-7 are used to describe metadata information and the Web Ontology Language (OWL) to produce and manipulate ontological descriptions. SPARQL is used for querying the OWL ontologies. The MPEG Query Format (MPQF) is also used, providing a well-known framework for applying queries to the metadata and to the ontologies.


User Preference Distribute Hash Table Simple Object Access Protocol SPARQL Query Audio Track 
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.
    Petrie, H.L., Weber, G., Fisher, W.: Personalization, interaction, and navigation in rich multimedia documents for print-disabled users. IBM Systems Journal 44(3), 629–635 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hicks, D.L., Tochtermann, K.: Personalizing Information Spaces: A Metadata Based Approach. In: International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Tokyo, Japan, October 24-26, pp. 213–220 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kovacikova, T., Petersen, F., Pluke, M., Alvarez, V.A., Bartolomeo, G., Frisiello, A., Zetterstrom, E., Cadzow, S.: Personalization and User Profile Standardization. In: Seventh IASTED International Conference on Communication Systems and Networks, Track 629-043, Palma de Mallorca, Spain, September 1-3, pp. 629–43 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Takayama, T., Sasaki, H., Kuroda, S.: Personalization by Relevance Ranking Feedback in Impression-based Retrieval for Multimedia Database. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics 3(2), 85–89 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seo, M., Ko, B., Chung, H., Nam, J.Y.: ROI-Based Medical Image Retrieval Using Human-Perception and MPEG-7 Visual Descriptors. In: Sundaram, H., Naphade, M., Smith, J.R., Rui, Y. (eds.) CIVR 2006. LNCS, vol. 4071, pp. 231–240. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cobos, Y., Sarasua, C., Linaza, M.T., Jimerez, I., Garcia, A.: Retrieving Film Heritage content using an MPEG-7 Compliant Ontology. In: Third International Workshop on Semantic Media Adaptation and Personalization, Prague, Czech Republic, December 15-16, pp. 63–68 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tseng, B., Lin, C.Y., Smith, J.: Using MPEG7 and MPEG-21 for Personilizing Video. IEEE Multimedia Journal 11(1), 42–53 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tsinaraki, C., Christodoulakis, S.: Semantic User Preference Description in MPEG-7/21. In: Fourth Hellenic Data Management Symposium, pid 6, Athens, Greece, August 25-26 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim, M., Lim, J., Kang, K., Kim, J.: Agent-Based Intelligent Multimedia Broadcasting within MPEG-21 Multimedia Framework. ETRI Journal 26(2) (April 2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents,
  11. 11.
    Kohncke, B., Balke, W.T.: Preference-driven personalization for flexible digital item adaptation. Multimedia Systems 13(2), 119–130 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tsinaraki, C., Christodoulakis, S.: A User Preference Model and a Query Language that allow Semantic Retrieval and Filtering of Multimedia Content. In: SMAP 2006: First International Workshop on Semantic Media Adaptation and Personalization, Athens, Greece, December 4-5, pp. 121–128 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhai, J., Zhou, K.: Semantic Retrieval for Sports Information Based on Ontology and SPARQL. In: ISME 2010: International Conference of Information Science and Management Engineering, Beijing, China, August 7-8, vol. 2, pp. 395–398 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Skondras, E., Michalas, A., Louta, M., Ioannis, A.: A Personalized Audio Server using MPEG-7 and MPEG-21 standards. In: IEEE 5th International Workshop on Semantic Media Adaptation and Personalization, Limassol, Cyprus, December 9-10, pp. 37–43 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oram, A.: Peer to Peer: Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies. O’Reilly & Associates (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kreger, H.: Web Services Conceptual Architecture. IBM (May 2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    MPEG-7, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 Coding of Moving Pictures and Audio,
  18. 18.
    MPEG-21, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 Coding of Moving Pictures and Audio,
  19. 19.
    Web Ontology Language, World Wide Web Consortium,
  20. 20.
    SPARQL Query Language for RDF,
  21. 21.
    Döller, M., Tous, R., Gruhne, M., Yoon, K., Sano, M., Burnett, I.S.: The MPEG Query Format: Unifying Access to Multimedia Retrieval Systems. IEEE Multimedia 5(4), 82–95 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee, I., He, Y., Guan, L.: Centralized P2P Streaming with MDC. In: Seventh IEEE Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing, October 30-November 2, pp. 1–4 (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rowstron, A., Druschel, P.: Pastry: Scalable, decentralized object location, and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems. In: Guerraoui, R. (ed.) Middleware 2001. LNCS, vol. 2218, pp. 329–350. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ratnasamy, S., Francis, P., Handley, M., Karp, R., Shenker, S.: A Scalable Content-addressable Network. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, San Diego, CA, pp. 161–172 (August 2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stoica, I., Morris, R., Karger, D., Kaashoek, M.F., Balakrishnan, H.: Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-Peer Lookup Service for Internet Applications. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, San Diego, CA, pp. 149–160 (August 2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hildrum, K., Kubiatowicz, J.D., Rao, S., Zhao, B.Y.: Distributed object location in a dynamic network. Theory of Computing Systems 37(3), 405–440 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
    KazaA. KaZaA,
  29. 29.
    Loo, B.T., Huebsch, R., Stoica, I., Hellerstein, J.M.: The Case for a Hybrid P2P Search Infrastructure. In: Voelker, G.M., Shenker, S. (eds.) IPTPS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3279, pp. 141–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Qusay, M.: Overview of CORBA. In: Distributed Programming with Java,  ch. 11, pp. 153–161. Manning Publications (January 2001)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework, W3C Recommendation, 2nd edn., April 27 (2007),
  32. 32.
    Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1, W3C Note, March 15 (2001),
  33. 33.
    RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema, W3C Recommendation, February 10 (2004),
  34. 34.
    OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Document Overview, W3C Recommendation, October 27 (2009),
  35. 35.
    SPARQL Query Language for RDF, W3C Recommendation, January 15 (2008),
  36. 36.
    SPARQL Query Results XML Format, W3C Recommendation, January 15 (2008),
  37. 37.
    SPARQL Protocol for RDF, W3C Working Draft, January 14 (2005),
  38. 38.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emmanouil Skondras
    • 1
  • Angelos Michalas
    • 1
  • Malamati Louta
    • 2
  • George Kouzas
    • 3
  1. 1.Dpt of Informatics & Computer TechnologyTechnological Educational Institute of Western MacedoniaKastoriaGreece
  2. 2.Dpt of Informatics and Telecommunications EngineeringUniversity of Western MacedoniaKozaniGreece
  3. 3.Dpt of Financial and management engineeringUniversity of the AegeanChiosGreece

Personalised recommendations