steve
/
wiki-archive
mirror of https://github.com/tdwg/wiki-archive.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
wiki-archive/twiki/data/Image/ChapmanImageMedataDocument.txt

371 lines
26 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters

This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

%META:TOPICINFO{author="BobMorris" date="1129610369" format="1.0" version="1.1"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="ImageCollaborationsBesidesThis"}%
TDWG IMAGE METADATA
Current State of Play and Resources
A.D.Chapman
4 Nov 2004
Adapted to wiki by Main.BobMorris.17 Oct 2005
[[%ATTACHURL%/TDWGIMAGEMETADATA.doc][Original Chapman Word Document]]
NB. This document is not a comprehensive document on image metadata, but is meant to provide some links to current initiatives as a basis to begin discussion on what TDWG may need to do, and to help determine what its role may be. Abstracts are generally quoted verbatim – and nothing in this paper is to be interpreted as original work.
---++ 1. Digital Still Images
A. Current and Developing Standards
NISO Metadata for Images in XML Schema
Date : 1 Jun. 2002
Link: http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39_87_trial_use.pdf
Title: Data Dictionary – Technical Metadata for Digital Still Images
Source: National Information Standards Organization (NISO) and AIIM International
Proposed Standard: NISO Z39.87
Notes: Released as a Draft Standard for Trial Use June 1, 2002 – December 31, 2003
------------------------------------------------
Date: 2004
Link: http://www.niso.org/committees/committee_au.html
Title: Data Dictionary – Technical Metadata for Digital Still Images
Source: National Information Standards Organization (NISO)
Abstract: “The Committee will review and revise the Data Dictionary for Technical Metadata for Digital Still Images (Working Draft, 1.0, July 2000), which presents a comprehensive list of technical data elements required to manage digital image collections. In this context, "management" refers to the processes required to support image quality assessment, image enhancement and processing, and long-term collection management for ensuring the longevity of digital images. The goal of the committee is to evaluate whether the draft dictionary identifies, describes, and qualifies all the necessary technical metadata elements to form a foundation for image management.”
------------------------------------------------
Date: 30 Aug. 2004
Link: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mix/
Title: MIX: NISO Metadata for Images in XML Schema
Source: U.S. Library of Congress
Abstract: “The Library of Congress' Network Development and MARC Standards Office, in partnership with the NISO Technical Metadata for Digital Still Images Standards Committee and other interested experts, is developing an XML schema for a set of technical data elements required to manage digital image collections. The schema provides a format for interchange and/or storage of the data specified in the NISO Draft Standard Data Dictionary: Technical Metadata for Digital Still Images (Version 1.2). This schema is currently in draft status and is being referred to as "NISO Metadata for Images in XML (NISO MIX)".”
------------------------------------------------
DIG35 v. 1.1
Date: 10 Jun 2002
Link: http://xml.coverpages.org/dig35.html
Title: DIG35: Metadata Standard for Digital Still Images
Source: DIG35 Initiative Group (Hosted by OASIS)
Abstract: The focus of the DIG35 Initiative Group is on defining metadata standards. By establishing standards, the Initiative Group seeks to overcome a variety of challenges that have arisen as the sheer volume of digital images being used has increased. Among these are efficiently archiving, indexing, cataloging, reviewing, and retrieving individual images, whenever and wherever needed.
Notes: Appendix 2 of NISO Z39.87 Maps Z39.87 to TIFF 6.0, DIG35 v.1.1, and EXIF 2.2 (see http://www.rlg.org/longterm/ae_appendix2_2003.pdf)
------------------------------------------------
EXIF v. 2.2
Date: 19 Nov. 2001
Link: http://www.exif.org/
Title: EXIF: Exchangeable Image File Format
Source: EXIF.org
Abstract: EXIF s a standard for storing interchange information in image files, especially those using JPEG compression. Most digital cameras now use the EXIF format. The format is part of the DCF standard created by JEIDA to encourage interoperability between imaging devices.
Notes: EXIF is a a format and not a metadata standard
Notes: Appendix 2 of NISO Z39.87 Maps Z39.87 to TIFF 6.0, DIG35 v.1.1, and EXIF 2.2 (see http://www.rlg.org/longterm/ae_appendix2_2003.pdf)
------------------------------------------------
Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
Date: 11 Jun 2000
Link: http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-type-vocabulary/
Title: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative: Image-002
“Term Name:Image
URI: http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Image
Label: Image Definition: An image is a primarily symbolic visual representation other than text. For example – images and photographs of physical objects, paintings, prints, drawings, other images and graphics, animations and moving pictures, film, diagrams, maps, musical notation. Note that image may include both electronic and physical representations.
Type of Term: vocabulary-term
Broader Than: http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage
Broader Than: http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/MovingImage
Status: recommended
Date Issued: 2000-07-11
Version: Image-002”
------------------------------------------------
Date: 1997
Authors: S. Weibel, R. Iannella and W. Cathro
Link: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june97/metadata/06weibel.html
Title: 4th Dublin Core Metadata Workshop Report (1997).
Source: DLib Magazine
Abstract: “The CNI/OCLC Image Metadata Workshop focused on the use of the Dublin Core (DC)to describe images. Consensus formed around the assertion that, with some modifications of element names and definition, the Dublin Core would serve quite adequately for description of a large class of image resources, particularly those that share characteristics with the document-like objects that were the original focus of DC.“
------------------------------------------------
WC3 – Describing and retrieving photos using RDF and HTTP
Date: 19 Apr. 2002
Link: http://www.w3.org/TR/photo-rdf
Title: Describing and retrieving photos using RDF and HTTP
Source: WC3
Abstract: “This W3C informational Note details the work of an experimental project which demonstrates how Resource Description Framework (RDF) metadata can be used to describe the content of Digitised photos to enable them to be searchable and retrievable over HTTP.
The photo-RDF system described in this paper has three parts to it:
1. Scanning a photo and saving it as a JPEG file
2. Entering the photo’s RDF-based metadata and storing it inside the JPEG file
3. Using a Jigsaw-based server-side module which uses HTTP-based content negotiation to serve up either the JPEG image data or its RDF description to an awaiting client or server-based application.”
The paper also links to a working example of a photo-serving slideshow application that provides a demonstration of this technology in action.
------------------------------------------------
W3photo: Image Region Vocabulary: RDFS+OWL Summary
Date: 26 Feb 2004
Link: http://www.bnowack.de/w3photo/pages/image_vocabs
Title: W3photo: Image Region Vocabulary: RDFS+OWL Summary
Source: W3photo.org (a voluntary group)
Notes: A basic beginning using photos from World Wide Web Conferences but appears to be an attempt to use metadata to define regions of an image. Includes:
 Region
 Rectangle
 Polygon
 Circle
 Elipse-dhaped region
 Inverse function (has Region)
 Region of
 Coordinates
 Depicts
 Depiction, and
 Bounding Box
Part of Semantic-Photo Metadata http://w3photo.org/semantic/ - includes Wiki.
JPEG2000
Date: 2004
Link: http://www.jpeg.org/jpeg2000/
Title: JPEG2000. Our New Standard
Source: Joint Photographic Experts Group, JPEG, and Joint Bi-level Image experts Group, JBIG.
Abstract: “JPEG 2000 is a new image coding system that uses state-of-the-art compression techniques based on wavelet technology.
JPEG 2000 refers to all parts of the standard: Part 1 (the core) is now published as an International Standard, five more parts (2-6) are complete or nearly complete, and four new parts (8-11) are under development. (See Background information.) The parts are:
• Part 1, Core coding system (intended as royalty and license-fee free - NB NOT patent-free)
• Part 2, Extensions (adds more features and sophistication to the core)
• Part 3, Motion JPEG 2000
• Part 4, Conformance
• Part 5, Reference software (Java and C implementations are available)
• Part 6, Compound image file format (document imaging, for pre-press and fax-like applications, etc.)
• Part 7 has been abandoned
• Part 8, JPSEC (security aspects)
• Part 9, JPIP (interactive protocols and API)
• Part 10, JP3D (volumetric imaging)
• Part 11, JPWL (wireless applications)
• Part 12, ISO Base Media File Format (common with MPEG-4)”
------------------------------------------------
Date: ?Dec. 2000
Link: http://www.jpeg2000info.com/
Title: JP2
Abstract: JP2 is the file extension for the new image format called JPEG2000 based on state-of-the-art wavelet compression.
------------------------------------------------
Microsoft: Metadata in Image Files and GDI+
Date: 4 Dec. 2001
Link: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/GDIplus_Metadata.mspx
Title: Metadata in Image Files and GDI+
Source: Microsoft
Abstract: “Microsoft is encouraging industry groups and vendors who define image file formats to specify and support a baseline set of metadata to help promote widespread use of specific metadata by the industry and consumers. This download article discusses how Microsoft is supporting metadata with GDI+ and recommends enhancements for metadata support in the industry.”
B. Some Applications
Metadata applied to Digitized Images in a Web Environment
Date: 7 Dec 1997
Author: Mary Lynette Larsgaard
Title: Metadata applied to Digitized Images in a Web Environment:
Link: http://www.mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de/projects/workshop97/papers/larsgard7.12.html
Notes: Uses Dublin Core
Canadian Heritage: Metadata Standards for Museum Cataloguing
Date: 24 Apr 2002
Link: http://www.chin.gc.ca/English/Standards/metadata_multimedia.html
Title: Metadata Standards for Museum Cataloguing
Notes: Has some info on Digital content.
Based largely on an extension of Dublin Core
Picture Australia
Date: 26 Apr 2002
Link: http://www.pictureaustralia.org/metadata.html
Title: Picture Australia: Metadata Guidelines
Notes: Based on Dublin Core
Metadata for Images: Slide presentation
Date: 2 Mar. 2000
Author: Michael Day
Title: Metadata for Images
Source: UKOLN: The UK Office for Library and Information Networking
Link: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/presentations/cir99/
Notes: A slide show – mainly based around Dublin Core
---++ 2. VIDEO and Moving Images
A. Current and Developing Standards
MPEG-7
Date: Mar. 2003
Authors: J.M. Martinez
Link: http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/standards/mpeg-7/mpeg-7.htm
Title: MPEG-7 Overview. ISO/IEC JTC/SC29/WG11/N5525. Coding of Moving Pictures and Audio.
Source: International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO)
Abstract: “MPEG-7 is an ISO/IEC standard developed by MPEG (Moving Picture Experts Group), the committee that also developed the Emmy Award winning standards known as MPEG-1 and MPEG-2, and the MPEG-4 standard. MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 standards made interactive video on CD-ROM and Digital Television possible. MPEG-4 is the multimedia standard for the fixed and mobile web enabling integration of multiple paradigms.
Formally named “Multimedia Content Description Interface”, is a standard for describing the multimedia content data that supports some degree of interpretation of the information’s meaning, which can be passed onto, or accessed by, a device or a computer code. MPEG-7 is not aimed at any one application in particular; rather, the elements that MPEG-7 standardizes support as broad a range of applications as possible.”
MPEG-21
Date: Oct. 2002
Authors: J.Bormans and K.Hill
Link: http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/standards/mpeg-21/mpeg-21.htm
Title: MPEG-21 Overview v.5 ISO/IEC JTC/SC29/WG11/N5231. Coding of Moving Pictures and Audio.
Source: International Organization for Standardisation (ISO)
Definition: “A comprehensive standard framework for networked digital multimedia designed by the Moving Picture Experts Group. MPEG-21 includes an REL and a Rights Data Dictionary. Unlike other MPEG standards that describe compression coding methods, MPEG-21 describes a standard that defines the description of content and also processes for accessing, searching, storing and protecting the copyrights of content.” (Webopedia.com)
Abstract: “MPEG-21 aims at defining a normative open framework for multimedia delivery and consumption for use by all the players in the delivery and consumption chain. This open framework will provide content creators, producers, distributors and service providers with equal opportunities in the MPEG-21 enabled open market. This will also be to the benefit of the content consumer providing them access to a large variety of content in an interoperable manner
MPEG-21 is based on two essential concepts: the definition of a fundamental unit of distribution and transaction (the Digital Item) and the concept of Users interacting with Digital Items. The Digital Items can be considered the “what” of the Multimedia Framework (e.g., a video collection, a music album) and the Users can be considered the “who” of the Multimedia Framework.
The goal of MPEG-21 can thus be rephrased to: defining the technology needed to support Users to exchange, access, consume, trade and otherwise manipulate Digital Items in an efficient, transparent and interoperable way.”
MPEG-21 Technical Document
ISO/IEC TR 21000-1:2001(E) Part 1: Vision, Technologies and Strategy, freely downloadable from http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/ittf/ PubliclyAvailableStandards
Motion JPEG 2000
Date: 2004.
Link: http://www.jpeg.org/jpeg2000/j2kpart3.html
Title: Motion JPEG 2000 (Part 3)
Source: Joint Photographic Experts Group, JPEG, and Joint Bi-level Image experts Group, JBIG.
Abstract: “Part 3 of JPEG 2000 defines a file format called MJ2 (or MJP2) for motion sequences of JPEG 2000 images. Support for associated audio is also included. MJ2 does not involve inter-frame coding: each frame is coded independently using JPEG 2000. Expected applications include:
• storing video clips taken using digital still cameras
• high-quality frame-based video recording and editing
• digital cinema
• medical and satellite imagery”
Note: MJ2, originally defined in ISO/IEC 15444-3:2002 as a standalone document, has now been expressed by ISO/IEC 15444-3:2002/Amd 2:2003 in terms of the ISO Base format, ISO/IEC 15444-12.
B. Applications and References
Digital Video Archives: Managing Through Metadata
Date: 2002
Authors: H.D. Wactlar and M.G. Christel
Link: http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub106/video.html
Title: Digital Video Archives: Managing Through Metadata
Source: Carnegie Mellon University
Abstract: Metadata for video are crucial when one considers the huge volume of bits within digital video representations. When digitizing an analog signal for video, the signal needs to be sampled a number of times per second, and those samples quantized into numeric values that can then be represented as bits. Only with infinite sampling and quantization could the digital representation exactly reproduce the analog signal. However, human physiology provides some upper bounds on differences that can actually be distinguished.
Notes: Looks at use of Dublin Core, MPEG-7, MPEG-21 and includes a number of case studies. This would appear to be a valuable document.
The Application of Metadata Standards to Video Indexing.
Date: n.dat.
Authors: J.Hunter
Link: http://archive.dstc.edu.au/RDU/staff/jane-hunter/ECDL2/final.html
Title: The Application of Metadata Standards to Video Indexing.
Source: Distributed Systems Technology Coperative Research Centre (CRC), Australia
Abstract: “This paper first outlines a multi-level video indexing approach based on Dublin Core extensions and the Resource Description Framework (RDF). The advantages and disadvantages of this approach are discussed in the context of the requirements of the proposed MPEG-7 ("Multimedia Content Description Interface") standard. The related work on SMIL (Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language) by the W3C SYMM working group is then described. Suggestions for how this work can be applied to video metadata are made. Finally a hybrid approach is proposed based on the combined use of Dublin Core and the currently undefined MPEG-7 standard within the RDF which will provide a solution to the problem of satisfying widely differing user requirements.”
A Comparison of Schemas for Video Metadata Representation.
Date: n.dat.
Authors: J.Hunter
Link: http://www8.org/w8-papers/3c-hypermedia-video/comparison/comparison.html
Title: The Application of Metadata Standards to Video Indexing.
Source: Distributed Systems Technology Coperative Research Centre (CRC), Australia
Abstract: “To enable the resource discovery of audiovisual documents over the WWW, it will be necessary to define content description standards or metadata standards for complex, multi-layered, time-dependent information-rich audiovisual data streams. In particular, this is the primary goal of the emerging MPEG-7 standard, the "Multimedia Content Description Interface" [1], under development by the MPEG group. In the past, a lot of effort has gone into generating descriptors and description schemes for video indexing but comparatively little research has been done on schemas capable of defining the structure, content and semantics of video documents and enabling validation and higher levels of automated content checking. This paper compares the capabilities of the RDF Schema, Extensible Markup Language (XML) Document Type Definitions (DTD's), Document Content Description (DCD) and Schema for Object-Oriented XML (SOX), for supporting and validating hierarchical video descriptions based on Dublin Core, MPEG-7 and a specific hierarchical structure. Finally this paper proposes a hybrid schema based on features from each of these schemas which will satisfy the MPEG-7 Description Definition Language (DDL) requirements.”
Bioimage
Date: 2004
Link: http://www.bioimage.org/
Title: Bioimage
Source: Bioimage (University of Oxford)
Abstract: “The BioImage Database is part of the European Commission-funded ORIEL Project (Online Research Information Environment for the Life Sciences), which, as the research arm of E-BioSci, is developing tools and procedures to promote access to and integration and retrieval of high-quality digital biological information. Within this, the BioImage Database will provide the scientific community with a freely-accessible database of multidimensional digital images of biological research relevance with deep descriptive metadata, using the latest Semantic Web technology.
The objectives of the current phase of the BioImage Database project are to develop the functionality of the BioImage Database, to populate it with images from biological journals, learned societies and research collections, and to integrate it within the overall E-BioSci environment. This work is being undertaken within the Image Bioinformatics Laboratory of the Department of Zoology at Oxford University. We welcome enquiries from potential contributors of high quality biological images and videos.”
Specimen Image Databases for Taxonomic Research
Date: Oct. 2004
Link: http://www.tdwg.org/2004meet/EV/TDWG_2004_Papers_Arino_1.zip
Author: A.H. Ariño and D. Galicia
Title: Specimen Image Databases for Taxonomic Research
Source: TDWG
Abstract: Experiences on file and metadata handling with taxonomic images. Paper presented at TDWG 2004.
Media Streams: Video annotation and editing systems
Date: n.dat.
Link: http://fusion.sims.berkeley.edu/GarageCinema/pubs/pdf/pdf_98D72358-B056-40A6-B972060E6708ECF2.pdf
Author: M. Davis, B. Williams and G. Levin
Title: Media Streams: Video annotation and editing systems
Abstract: “Garage Cinema Research's is building on Professor Davis' Media Streams, a system for media annotation, retrieval, and resequencing according to semantic descriptions of media content using manual, semi-automatic, and automatic techniques. Media Streams is the only software solution that offers a uniform, scalable, and global language for semantic annotation, retrieval, and resequencing of video content. Media Streams provides more accurate and more reusable annotation and retrieval than current signal-processing based systems, keyword based systems, or natural language based systems. Having had influence on the emerging MPEG-7 media metadata standard, Garage Cinema Research is working to integrate Media Streams' description language into MPEG-7” (ref. http://garage.sims.berkeley.edu/research.cfm)
---++ 3. Relevant Workshop and Conference Proceedings
o Three-Dimensional Image Capture and Applications. 19-22 January 2004, San Jose, California
http://electronicimaging.org/program/04/conferences/index.cfm?fuseaction=5302
o From Context to Content: Leveraging Context to Infer Media Metadata, 12-14 October 2004
http://www.mm2004.org/acm_mm04_FinalProgram.htm
o WDIC 2003. APRS Workshop on Digital Image Computing, 7 Feb 2003. Brisbane, Australia, 12-14 October 2004
http://www.aprs.org.au/wdic2003/CDROM/
---++ 4. Issues
Many of these were raised in the discussion at TDWG 2004.
 Where are the gaps and what might TDWG need to cover?
 What is needed to support the location/search of our images; whether that can be done with current methods or not;
 What do we need to know in order to discover who is holding the image you need and how to get it?
 What things are specific to documenting images of organisms - is it whole/part, what aspect, what angle, what orientation, describe the specimen - living? dead? still in existence?
 Can we make image retrieval systems that are somewhat sensitive to the topology of the anatomy of organisms...looking for pictures of ears, it would know to pull up side-views of skulls?
 Need to be able to query such as: show me the TYPE of taxon X and hopefully only get one! Or...how would I know IF there is an image of the type out there?
 What is the relationship between our IMAGEs and our databases of information?
 Incorporating SDD to describe parts of (regions or objects within) an image
o See Bob Morris’ paper at TDWG 2004.
 Automated capture of metadata – what is possible?
o NB: EXIF, DIG35, GDI+, etc.
 Will MJP2, MPEG-7/MPEG-21 be suitable for tracking an object through video (they does document frame by frame, but can it handle regions within a frame?) See for example Bloom and Bradley (2003), and Davis (n.dat.) on use of media streams (above)
 How much should be included within the image, and how much in a separate database (see comments in Wactler and Christel (2002) mentioned above).
 What level of detail is needed to document taxonomic images (habitat etc.) – NB attribute links to SDD and ABCD.
 How does one record behaviour and interactions (NB – see Bloom and Bradley 2003) – can this be done in the metadata or through use of tracking software etc. See also DIG35?
 How much detail do we require on documenting locality – link to GML (link to Spatial Subgroup)
 Documentation of groups of images (may be parallel to documenting frames in a video)
 Use of LSIDs (for example to reference regions within an image). It would be great to have LSIDs to taxonomic concepts; tagging of images and regions; and even, connecting it to *characters*
 Ecological images need to include documentation of season, behaviour, weather, perspective, habitat attributes, lighting...interactions...not just a list of the taxa in the image.
 Are their different levels of documentation that can be used for different purposes?
o simple Dublin-Core metadata
o detailed documentation
 Can one metadata format handle different types of images?
o Type specimens
o Images for morphometrics (see Arino and Galicia 2004, above) and pixel-based character definition
o Observations/images from the field
o Images from publications, collection labels, ledgers and fieldnotes
o Images of Characters
o Video
o Time lapse
 As noted in a working group report on preservation metadata (OCLC 2001), metadata for digital information objects, including video, can be assigned to one of three categories
o Descriptive (facilitating resource identification and exploration)
o Administrative (supporting resource management)
o Structural (binding together the components of more complex information objects) (after Wactal and Christel 2002 above).
Which of these can be added automatically, and which not?
 What needs to be put in place to support collaboration around images (identification, etc.)?
 What needs to be put in place to support quality-vetting of image-providers?
 Is there a need for a registry of “approved” image servers? (An alternative may be to use Dublin-core to TAG “official images, museum-identified images, etc.)
 Do we need a method of describing capture methods/techniques? (NB EXIF, DIG35, GDI+, ITTC)
 Do image Web Services exist, or is there a need for an Image Web Service?
 Do we need a UDDI for image servers in our community?
Some ideas for next steps (from Stan Blum):
1) Try using SDD to describe image content - does it work? Does it need changing? (Bob Morris says he doesn't think his current tools would do it - ask Kevin Thiele re LUCID?)
2) Seeing the realm of other descriptions that are being developed - what are the wholes? Are they specific to communities using images in particular ways, or general to biologists?
3) Put out a call for people interested in joining this effort – Need to include communities interested in:
a. Observational Data,
b. Digitizing Types,
c. Documenting morphological characters;
d. Video
e. Etc.
---++ REFERENCES
Bloom, T. and A.P. Bradley (2003). Player Tracking and Stroke Recognition in Tennis Video. WDIC2003. APRS Workshop on Digital Image Computing. 7 February 2003, Brisbane, Australia. pp. 93-97. http://www.aprs.org.au/wdic2003/CDROM/93.pdf [Accessed 4 Nov. 2004].
OCLC/RLG (2001). Preservation Metadata Working Group Issues White Paper, Preservation Metadata for Digital Objects: A Review of the State of the Art (January 31). Available at: http://www.oclc.org/digitalpreservation/presmeta_wp.pdf.
Wendler, R. 1999. LDI Update: Metadata in the Library. Library Notes, no. 1286 (July/August): 4-5.
-- Main.BobMorris - 18 Oct 2005
%META:FILEATTACHMENT{name="TDWGIMAGEMETADATA.doc" attr="h" comment="Original Chapman Document" date="1129610316" path="TDWG IMAGE METADATA.doc" size="107520" user="BobMorris" version="1.1"}%
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink