2 Responses to A comparison of metadata standards for media

  1. Don’t forget the W3C Video in the Web work, and especially the W3C Media Annotations Working Group. The purpose of the MAWG is to “provide an ontology and API designed to facilitate cross-community data integration of information related to media objects in the Web, such as video, audio and images.”

    Very heavy focus on “crosswalks” (and rightfully so)…

  2. chris says:

    Thanks — I’ve been following the MAWG for awhile now. I love their focus on getting to the essential bits of media metadata, but I’m still very uncertain what the fate of their efforts will be or what they could do to avoid becoming yet another niche W3C standard that is only ever half-implemented. Their crosswalks are very nice, though (and reveal the somewhat ridiculous proliferation of media metadata standards)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>