Efficiently Managing Multimedia Hierarchical Data with the WINDSURF Library

  • Ilaria Bartolini
  • Marco Patella
  • Guido Stromei
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 314)


Complex multimedia data are at the heart of several modern applications, such as image/video retrieval and the comparison of collection of documents. Frequently, such complex data are modeled as hierarchical objects that consist of different components, like videos including shots, images including visually coherent regions, and so on. When such complex objects are to be compared, for example, for assessing their mutual similarity, this is usually done by recursively comparing component elements. However, due to such complexity, it is often hard to efficiently perform a number of tasks, like processing of queries or understanding the impact of different alternatives available for the definition of similarity between objects. In this article, we propose a unified model for the representation of complex multimedia data, introducing the WINDSURF software library, with the goal of allowing a seamless management of such data. The library provides a framework for evaluating the performance of alternative query processing algorithms for efficient retrieval of multimedia data. Important features of the WINDSURF library are its generality, flexibility, and extensibility. These are guaranteed by the appropriate instantiation of the different templates included in the library: in this way, each user can realize her particular retrieval model of need.


Retrieval Model Skyline Query Element Distance Query Processing Algorithm Query Document 
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.
    Ardizzoni, S., Bartolini, I., Patella, M.: Windsurf: Region-based image retrieval using wavelets. In: IWOSS 1999, Florence, Italy, pp. 167–173 (September 1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bartolini, I., Ciaccia, P., Oria, V., Özsu, T.: Flexible integration of multimedia sub-queries with qualitative preferences. Multimedia Tools and Applications 33(3), 275–300 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartolini, I., Ciaccia, P., Patella, M.: Query processing issues in region-based image databases. Knowledge and Information Systems 25(2), 389–420 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bartolini, I., Patella, M., Romani, C.: SHIATSU: Semantic-Based Hierarchical Automatic Tagging of Videos by Segmentation using Cuts. In: AIEMPro 2010, Florence, Italy (September 2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chávez, E., Navarro, G., Baeza-Yates, R., Marroquín, J.L.: Proximity searching in metric spaces. ACM Computing Surveys 33(3), 273–321 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ciaccia, P., Patella, M., Zezula, P.: M-tree: An efficient access method for similarity search in metric spaces. In: VLDB 1997, Athens, Greece, pp. 426–435 (August 1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fei-Fei, L., Fergus, R., Torralba, A.: Recognizing and learning object categories. In: CVPR 2007 Short Course, Minneapolis, MN (June 2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fishburn, P.: Preference structures and their numerical representations. Theoretical Computer Science 217(2), 359–383 (1999)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gaede, V., Günther, O.: Multidimensional access methods. ACM Computing Surveys 30(2), 170–231 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grauman, K.: Efficiently searching for similar images. Communications of the ACM 53(6), 84–94 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guttman, A.: R-trees: A dynamic index structure for spatial searching. In: SIGMOD 1984, Boston, MA, pp. 47–57 (June 1984)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hjaltason, G.R., Samet, H.: Distance browsing in spatial databases. ACM TODS 24(2), 265–318 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hjaltason, G.R., Samet, H.: Index-driven similarity search in metric spaces. ACM TODS 28(4), 517–580 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ilyas, I.F., Beskales, G., Soliman, M.A.: A survey of top-k query processing techniques in relational database systems. ACM Computing Surveys 40(4) (October 2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kailath, T.: The divergence and Bhattacharyya distance measures in signal selection. IEEE Transactions on Communication Technology 15(1), 52–60 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kuhn, H.W.: The hungarian method for the assignment problem. Naval Research Logistic Quarterly 2, 83–97 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rubner, Y., Tomasi, C.: Perceptual Metrics for Image Database Navigation. Kluwer, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salton, G.: Automatic Text Processing: The Transformation, Analysis, and Retrieval of Information by Computer. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1989)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wu, L., Hoi, S.C.H., Jin, R., Zhu, J., Yu., N.: Distance metric learning from uncertain side information with application to automated photo tagging. In: ACM MM 2009, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 135–144 (October 2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang, J.Z., Li, J., Wiederhold, G.: SIMPLIcity: Semantics-sensitive Integrated Matching for Picture LIbraries. IEEE TPAMI 23(9), 947–963 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zezula, P., Amato, G., Dohnal, V., Batko, M.: Similarity Search - The Metric Space Approach, Advances in Database Systems, vol. 32. Springer (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ilaria Bartolini
    • 1
  • Marco Patella
    • 1
  • Guido Stromei
    • 1
  1. 1.DEISUniversità di BolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations