Advertisement

Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 57, Issue 2, pp 243–267 | Cite as

Implementation strategies for efficient media fragment retrieval

  • Wim Van Lancker
  • Davy Van Deursen
  • Erik Mannens
  • Rik Van de Walle
Article

Abstract

The current Web specifications such as HTML still treat video and audio resources as ‘foreign’ objects on the Web, especially lacking a transparent integration with current Web content. The Media Fragments URI specification is part of various efforts at W3C trying to make media a “first class citizen” on the Web. More specifically, with a Media Fragment URI, one can point to a media fragment by means of a URI, enabling people to identify, share, link, and consume media fragments in a standardized way. In this paper, we propose and evaluate a number of implementation strategies for Media Fragments. Additionally, we present two optimized implementation strategies: a Media Fragment Translation Service allowing to keep existing Web infrastructure such as Web servers and proxies and a fully integrated Media Fragments URI server that is independent of underlying media formats. Finally, we show how multiple bit rate media delivery can be deployed in a Media Fragments aware environment, using our Media Fragments URI server.

Keywords

Format-independent Implementation Media fragment URI NinSuna 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research activities as described in this paper were funded by Ghent University, the Interdisciplinary Institute for Broadband Technology (IBBT), the Institute for the Promotion of Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT), the Fund for Scientific Research-Flanders (FWO-Flanders), and the European Union.

References

  1. 1.
    Amielh M, Devillers S (2001) Multimedia content adaptation with XML. In: Proceedings of 8th international conference on multimedia modeling. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 127–145Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berners-Lee T, Fielding R, Masinter L (2005) IETF RFC 3986: uniform resource identifier (URI)–Generic Syntax. Available at http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986. Accessed 18 March 2011
  3. 3.
    Fielding R, Gettys J, Mogul J, Frystyk H, Masinter L, Leach P, Berners-Lee T (1999) RFC 2616: hypertext transfer protocol –HTTP/1.1.Available on http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616.html. Accessed 18 March 2011
  4. 4.
    Hannuksela MM, Wang Y-K, Gabbouj M (2004) Isolated regions in video coding. IEEE Trans Multimedia 6:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hausenblas M, Troncy R, Raimond Y, Bürger T (2009) Interlinking multimedia: how to apply linked data principles to multimedia fragments. In: 2nd workshop on linked data on the web (LDOW’09), Madrid, SpainGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO/IEC (2003) Information technology – coding of audio, picture, multimedia and hypermedia information – part 14: MP4 file format. ISO/IEC 14496-14:2003Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO/IEC (2007) Information technology – generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio information: systems. ISO/IEC 13818-1:2007Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO/IEC (2008) Information technology – MPEG systems technologies – part 5: bitstream syntax description language. ISO/IEC 23001-5:2008Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klyne G, Carroll JJ (eds) (2004) Resource description framework (RDF): concepts and abstract syntax. W3C Recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium. Available on http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/. Accessed 18 March 2011
  10. 10.
    McGuinness D, van Harmelen F (eds) (2004) OWL web ontology language: overview. W3C recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium. Available on http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/. Accessed 18 March 2011
  11. 11.
    Pantos R (2009) HTTP live streaming. Available on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pantos-http-live-streaming-01. Accessed 18 March 2011
  12. 12.
    Pfeiffer S (2003) RFC 3533: The ogg encapsulation format version 0. Available on http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3533.txt. Accessed 18 March 2011
  13. 13.
    Pfeiffer S (2007) Architecture of a video web - experience with annodex. W3C Video on the Web WorkshopGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pfeiffer S, Parker C, Schremmer C (2003) Annodex: a simple architecture to enable hyperlinking, search & retrieval of time–continuous data on the web. In: 5th ACM SIGMM international workshop on multimedia information retrieval (MIR), Berkeley, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pfeiffer S, Parker C, Pang A (2005) Internet draft: specifying time intervals in URI queries and fragments of time-based web resources. Available at http://annodex.net/TR/draft-pfeiffer-temporal-fragments-03.html. Accessed 18 March 2011
  16. 16.
    Prud’hommeaux E, Seaborne A (eds) (2007) SPARQL query language for RDF. W3C recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium. Available on http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/. Accessed 18 March 2011
  17. 17.
    Schulzrinne H, Rao A, Lanphier R (1998) RFC 2326: real time streaming protocol. Available on http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2326.txt. Accessed 18 March 2011
  18. 18.
    Troncy R, Mannens E (eds) (2009) Use cases and requirements for media fragments. W3C Working Draft. World Wide Web ConsortiumGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Troncy R, Mannens E, Pfeiffer S, Van Deursen D (eds) (2010) Media fragments URI 1.0. W3C Working Draft. World Wide Web ConsortiumGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van Deursen D, Troncy R, Mannens E, Pfeiffer S, Lafon Y, Van de Walle R (2010) Implementing the media fragments URI specification. In: Proceedings of the 19th international world wide web conference, Raleigh, NC, United States, pp 1361–1364Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Deursen D, Van Lancker W, De Bruyne S, De Neve W, Mannens E, Van de Walle R (2010) Format-independent and metadata-driven media resource adaptation using semantic web technologies. Multimedia Syst 16(2):85–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Van Deursen D, Van Lancker W, De Neve W, Paridaens T, Mannens E, Van de Walle R (2010) NinSuna: a fully integrated platform for format-independent multimedia content adaptation and delivery based on semantic web technologies. Multimed Tools Appl – Special Issue on Data Semantics for Multimedia Systems 46(2–3):371–398Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Deursen D, Van Lancker W, Debevere P, Van de Walle R (2010) Format-independent media delivery, applied to RTP, MP4, and Ogg. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on multimedia and ubiquitous engineering, Cebu, PhilippinesGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van Deursen, D, Van Lancker W, Van de Walle R (2010) On media delivery protocols in the web. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo 2010, Singapore, pp 1028–1033Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vetro A, Christopoulos C, Ebrahimi T (2003) Universal multimedia access. IEEE Signal Process Mag 20(2):16CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wim Van Lancker
    • 1
  • Davy Van Deursen
    • 1
  • Erik Mannens
    • 1
  • Rik Van de Walle
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electronics and Information Systems—Multimedia LabGhent University – IBBTLedeberg-GhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations