Using an Ontology for Multimedia Content Semantics

  • Giulio Concas
  • Filippo Eros Pani
  • Maria Ilaria Lunesu
  • Katiuscia Mannaro
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 515)

Abstract

In recent years, we witnessed the diffusion and rise in popularity of software platforms for the User Generated Content (UGC) management, especially multimedia objects. These platforms handle a large amount of unclassified information. UGC websites (e.g. YouTube and Flickr) do not force the users to perform classification operations and metadata definitions, leaving space to a logic of free-tags (Folksonomies). We analyzed the standards used in UGC websites for the management of the multimedia contents and their metadata. We defined an ontology to represent the semantics of these multimedia contents, so that in turn the metadata classification can give an unambiguous meaning. In order to unify metadata coming from different sources we defined all rules of mapping toward a structure defined by sources such as YouTube and Flickr. The innovation is in the approach for the formalization of web semantics for multimedia content: we used standards such as Dublin Core, Exif, IPTC and in particular the Adobe XMP standard as a starting point of this domain. With the proposed approach, once can categorize and catalog all non-standard and unclassifiable information inside the ontology, using pre-made schemas.

Keywords

Multimedia content Ontology Mapping Knowledge-base Metadata standard 

References

  1. 1.
    Gruber, T.: A translation approach to portable ontology specification. In. Knowledge Acquisition 5, 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Swartout, B., Patil, R., Knight, K., Russ, T.: Toward distributed use of large-scale ontologies ontological engineering. In: AAAI-97 Spring Symposium Series, pp. 138–148 (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gruber, T.: Ontology. In: Liu L., Özsu, M.T. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Database Systems. Springer-Verlag (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schreiber, ATh, Dubbeldam, B.: Wielemaker, J., Wielinga, B.: Ontology-based Photo Annotation. In. IEEE Intelligent Systems. 16, 66–74 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jaimes, A., Smith, J.: Semi-automatic, data- driven construction of multimedia ontologies. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), vol. 2 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benitez, A., Chang, S.: Automatic multimedia knowledge discovery, summarization and evaluation. IEEE Trans Multimedia 5, 390–402 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Strintzis, J., Bloehdom, S., Handschuh, S., Staab, S., Simou, N., Tzouvatras, V., Petridis, K., Kompatsiaris, I., Avrithis, Y.: Knowledge representation for semantic multimedia content analysis and reasoning. Proceedings of the European Workshop on the Integration of Knowledge Semantics and Digital Media Technology (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bertini, M., Cucchiara, R., Del Bimbo, A., Torniai, C.: Video annotation with pictiorally enriched ontologies. Proceedings of IEEE Int’l Conference on Multimedia and Expo. In, In (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bertini, M., Del Bimbo, A., Torniai, C., Cucchiara, R., Grana, C.: MOM: Multimedia Ontology Manager. A Framework for Automatic Annotation and Semantic Retrieval of Video Sequences. ACM, Santa Barbara California, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jewell, M.O., Lawrence, K.F., Tuffield, M.M., Prugel-Bennett, A., Millard, D.E., Nixon, M.S., Schraefel, M.C., Shadbolt, N.R.: OntoMedia: An ontology for the representation of heterogeneous Media. Multimedia Information Retrieval Workshop, ACM SIGIR, In (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dasiopoulou, S., Tzouvaras, V., Kompatsiaris, I., Strintzis, M.G.: Enquiring MPEG-7 based Ontologies. In. Multimedia Tools Applications. 46(2), 331–370 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paliouras, G., Spyropoulos, C. D., Tsatsaronis, G. (Eds.). In: Knowledge-Driven Multimedia Information Extraction and Ontology Evolution, Bridging the Semantic Gap. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6050, 1st edn, IX, 245 p., ISBN 978-3-642-20794-5 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martnez, J.M., Koenen, R., Pereira, F.: MPEG-7: the generic multimedia content description standard, part 1. In. IEEE Multimedia 9, 78–87 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Adobe Systems Incorporated, Adobe XMP Specifications, additional properties, 2010. http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/xmp/pdfs/XMPSpecificationPart2.pdf
  15. 15.
    Becker, H., Chapman, A., Daviel, A., Kaye, K., Larsgaard, M., Miller, D., Nebert, D., Prout, A., Wolf, M.P.: Dublin Core element: Coverage (1997). http://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/public-documents/metadata/dc_coverage.html
  16. 16.
    Hillmann, D.: Using Dublin Core (2004). http://dublincore.org/documents/usageguide
  17. 17.
    Technical Standardization Committee on AV & IT Storage Systems and Equipment. Exchangeable image file format for digital still cameras: Exif version 2.2. Published by: Standard of Japan Electronics and Information Technology Industries Association (2002). http://www.exif.org/Exif2-2.pdf
  18. 18.
    IPTC, Information Technology for news Standard Photo Metadata 2008 IPTC Core Specification 1.1 and IPTC Extension Specification 1.0. (2008). http://www.iptc.org/std/photo-metadata/2008/specification/IPTC-Photo-Metadata-2008.pdf
  19. 19.
    Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M.: Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0, W3C Recommendation (1998). http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
  20. 20.
    Vander Wal, T.: Folksonomy Coinage and Definition (2007). http://www.vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html
  21. 21.
    Lassila, O. Swick, R.: Resource Description Framework (RDF): Model and Syntax Specification. Recommendation W3C (1999). http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax
  22. 22.
    Brickley, D., Guha, R.V.: Resource Description Framework (RDF) Schema Specification 1.0.W3C Proposed Recommendation (2000). http://www.w3.org/TR/PR-rdf-schema
  23. 23.
    Noy, N.F., McGuiness, D., L.: Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology. : In: Knowledge Systems. Stanford University, AI Laboratory (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Carroll, J. J., De Roo, J.: OWL Web Ontology Language Test Cases. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Recommendation (2004). http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-test-20040210
  25. 25.
    McGuinness, D.L., Van Harmelen F.: OWL Web Ontology Language Overview. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Recommendation (2004). http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features
  26. 26.
    Heflin, J.: OWL Web Ontology Language Use Cases and Requirements. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Recommentation (2004). http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giulio Concas
    • 1
  • Filippo Eros Pani
    • 1
  • Maria Ilaria Lunesu
    • 1
  • Katiuscia Mannaro
    • 1
  1. 1.DIEE, Department of Electric and Electronic EngineeringAgile Group University of CagliariCagliariItaly

Personalised recommendations