BUILDING EXTENSIBLE 3D INTERACTION METADATA WITH
INTERACTION INTERFACE CONCEPT
Jacek Chmielewski
Department of Information Technology, Poznań University of Economics, Poland
Keywords: Metadata, Virtual reality, Interactive 3D, Interactive multimedia, XML.
Abstract: Proliferation of 3D technology is visible in many aspects of current software developments. It is possible to
find elements of 3D in many applications, from computer games, to professional engineering software, to
end user software. It is especially important in the end user field, where 3D technology is usually used to
provide natural and intuitive user interface. Fast development of such new applications can be driven by
reuse of interactive 3D objects that are built for one application and reused in many others. Nowadays,
number of such objects are stored in shared repositories and pose a challenge of finding right objects for
new application. To efficiently search for interactive 3D objects it is required to provide metadata of object
geometry, semantics and its interactions. Existing metadata standards can deal only with the first two areas.
In this paper a new approach to interaction metadata is presented. The proposed Multimedia Interaction
Model is accompanied by an Interaction Interface concept that allows creating interaction metadata not
limited to a predefined set of description elements. Interaction Interface concept provides a method and
tools for defining new description elements in a way suitable for automatic processing and automatic
analysis by search engines.
1 INTRODUCTION
The usage of 3D technology is more and more often.
In the entertainment domain 3D is used for years,
especially in computer games (Stone, 2001). Also
engineering software uses 3D technology
extensively. It is used mostly for design and analysis
of buildings, cars or other constructions (Ottosson,
2002). Nowadays, applications of 3D technology
can be found not only in entertainment and
professional software. Performance of current home
PCs is so good, that 3D technology is starting to be
used in new systems and computer programs for
average end user. It is especially noticeable in the
area of interactive 3D interfaces that aim to mimic
real world and provide user interface, which is
natural and intelligible for average home user.
A side effect of fast development of new
software that uses 3D technology is a growing
number of interactive 3D objects. Potentially, such
objects can be reused in new applications without
the need to build them from scratch. This fact can
significantly speed up the development of new 3D
applications and pave the way for faster
popularization of 3D technology. On the other hand,
the growing number of reusable interactive 3D
objects creates new challenges. Large number of
objects makes it harder to find an object that is
suitable for a particular application. The success of
development approach based on reusable objects
depends on the availability and effectiveness of tools
used to find appropriate 3D interactive objects.
Searching for interactive 3D objects is not an
easy task. Most of the important features of an
object, especially related to interactions, cannot be
extracted from the object definition. It is necessary
to introduce additional object description that will
provide information about object semantics and
object behavior. Such additional description is called
metadata. To be useful for search engines, metadata
has to be prepared according to a predefined schema.
Semantics of each element of such schema has to be
known to allow interpretations of user queries. At
the same time it is required to allow introducing new
metadata elements that will be used in descriptions
of interactions specific for a given domain or
application. None of existing metadata standards
provides such capabilities and therefore there is a
need for a new approach to metadata creation.
160
Chmielewski J. (2009).
BUILDING EXTENSIBLE 3D INTERACTION METADATA WITH INTERACTION INTERFACE CONCEPT.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval, pages 160-167
DOI: 10.5220/0002292801600167
Copyright
c
 SciTePress

2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Types of Interactions
In the field of virtual reality systems interactions can
be classified as: human to human, human to object
and object to object interactions. The first type –
human to human interactions – concern new 3D
communication solutions that allow for
communication between two or more persons
conducted via the 3D virtual environment. The area
of human to object interactions refer to human-
computer interactions (HCI) or to 3D design and
simulation systems, where actions taken by humans
on 3D objects are followed by pre-programmed
reactions of those objects. The last type of
interactions – object to object interactions – is
related mostly to 3D virtual worlds, where objects
have behavior defined and can act independently of
human interventions.
Such classification suggests that interactions of
each class should be described differently, which
potentially makes interactions metadata creation and
analysis more complicated. However, humans are on
the real side, while objects are on the computer side
and both concepts should not be mixed together. The
need is to describe interactions of 3D objects, not
humans. Therefore only the last two types of
interactions have to be considered. If viewed from
the computer point of view, human is just a special
case of an object – usually an avatar object (3D
representation of a human). Therefore, it is possible
to generalize human – object and object – object
interactions to a single class: object – object
interactions and describe all of them in the same
way. Such approach makes it possible to build a
single, yet universal model of an interaction that can
be used as a base for interaction metadata.
2.2 Interactive Objects
It is possible to distinguish at least three different
types of interactive 3D objects (Walczak, 2008). The
first type represents objects that are standard 3D
geometry figures modified if needed by a virtual
environment management process. In case of such
objects all interactions are controlled externally and
the object itself is static. The second type of
interactive objects represents objects whose
definition contains implementation of object
modifications, but the modification itself is still
triggered by a virtual environment management
process. Third type of interactive objects represents
objects whose definition contains implementation of
the whole object behavior. Such objects know when
and how they should react to some external events,
and therefore can be called: autonomous interactive
objects.
In order for the interactive 3D objects to be
reusable, they have to be independent of a particular
application or virtual scene. To satisfy this
requirement behavior of such objects has to be
embedded in the object definition and not imposed
by a 3D scene or a system that manages a virtual
world. The behavior code does not have to be
physically part of file with object definition, but it
has to be logically bound to this particular object
(Walczak, 2006). Only autonomous interactive
objects satisfy this requirement. It is possible to state
that all interactions of an autonomous interactive
object are an effect of execution of object own
behavior. As a result, interaction metadata can be
tightly associated with a specific object and can be
moved and stored with the object.
2.3 Interaction Metadata
The topic of multimedia object metadata is well
researched and developed. There are a number of
metadata standards that can be used to describe
object general properties or object format and
purpose specific characteristics. The most general
metadata standard is Dublin Core, which is a set of
fifteen elements designed to foster consensus across
disciplines for the discovery-oriented description of
diverse resources in an electronic environment.
Dublin Core Metadata Element Set [DCMES] is
intended to support cross-discipline resource
discovery and it does not satisfy every possible
declarative need in every discipline. Thus, in most
applications it is used in a combination with more
advanced, domain-specific metadata standard. DC
elements are usually a subset of resource metadata
and are used as a minimal metadata for data
exchange and discovery.
Interactive 3D objects usually contain many
multimedia components like: images and video as
textures, audio, text, complex 3D geometry,
therefore the complete description of such objects
may be composed of various domain specific
metadata. For still images EXIF [EXIF], DIG35
[DIG35] or NISO Z39.87 [Z39.87] can be used.
Video can be described with AAF [AAF], MXF
DMS-1 [MXF] or P/Meta [P/Meta]. Audio
components of the interactive 3D object can use
MusicBrainz (Swartz, 2002) or simple ID3 tags
[ID3]. However, complex multimedia resources like
interactive 3D objects are usually described with the
most universal metadata standard for multimedia
BUILDING EXTENSIBLE 3D INTERACTION METADATA WITH INTERACTION INTERFACE CONCEPT
161

objects – MPEG-7 (MPEG-7, Martinez et al., 2004).
It addresses not only general and format specific
information, but also object semantics, geometry and
spatio-temporal composition. MPEG-7 was
formulated with audio and video contents in mind
and its handling of 3D objects is limited.
Nevertheless, in the past few years, some 3D
metadata solutions were developed (Bilasco et al.,
2005, Lorenz et al., 2006, Pitarello and Faveri,
2006). Especially worth mentioning, is the 3D
SEmantics Annotation Model (3DSEAM) (Bilasco
et al., 2006) developed by a group from Laboratoire
Informatique de Grenoble, lead by Ioan Marius
Bilasco. 3DSEAM extends MPEG-7 localization
descriptors with Structural Locator and 3D Region
Locator tools, making MPEG-7 the best available
metadata solution for 3D multimedia objects.
However, even with such great pool of metadata
standards and solutions like MPEG-7 with 3DSEAM
extension (Bilasco et al., 2006) there is no universal
and extensible solution capable of describing
interaction properties of interactive 3D objects.
Existing metadata solutions can be used for
describing object semantics and geometry. However
they are not sufficient for describing object
interactions. Existing metadata standards for
multimedia objects were designed to describe a
static or linear content, i.e. still images, documents
or movies. In case of interaction descriptions the
problem is more sophisticated. An interaction is not
a simple ‘content’. Interaction influences
modification of the content, i.e. the object, but the
interaction itself is an action based on the object
behavior. The behavior is represented as an
algorithm expressed by a computer program. The
interaction metadata does not have to describe the
whole algorithm, which may be very complex or
confidential. To enable analyzing object interaction
properties and chains of subsequent interactions it is
enough to describe only the result of execution of
such computer program. Interactive objects change
their state according to interaction results and
interaction context, and new object parameter values
cannot be determined a priori. Existing metadata
solutions are not applicable for describing multiple
states of an object (i.e. all possible interaction
execution results). Therefore there is a need for a
new metadata solution.
To deal with this situation, a new approach to
interaction metadata is proposed. The proposed
approach is based on the following assumptions. To
be interactive, objects need to have a behavior. The
behavior is encoded in a form of a computer
program. The computer program of an interactive
object has at least one communication interface – an
API, which allows exchanging information with the
3D virtual world or other interactive objects. Such
API includes a number of functions and attributes
that reflect the state of an object. Knowing the API
and the computer program it is possible to precisely
describe object interaction characteristics and
possible object interactions, as well as match
compatible objects. Following the assumptions
stated above the Multimedia Interaction Model is
proposed, accompanied by the Interaction Interface
concept.
3 MULTIMEDIA INTERACTION
MODEL
The Multimedia Interaction Model (MIM) is a
conceptual model of an interaction described from
the point of view of an object (Chmielewski, IT
2008). It means that the interaction description is
build around object reaction and a context that
triggers the reaction. This approach comes from
areas of computer science dealing with active
environments, especially active databases. Research
on the active databases resulted in paradigm called
Event-Condition-Action (ECA) (Dayal et al., 1988),
which was introduced in late eighties by the
members of the HiPAC project. The semantics of
ECA rules are straightforward: when an event
occurs, evaluate the condition associated with the
event; and, if the condition is satisfied, trigger the
action. The ECA rules are used up to date to express
active DMBS features and event-reaction oriented
features in other systems (Bry and Patrânjan , 2005,
Papamarkos et al., 2003, Thome et al., 2005, Zhou et
al., 2004). The MIM model is based on the ECA
rules paradigm and uses Event, Condition and
Action components to describe the whole
interaction. Decomposition of an interaction into
these three independent areas is important, as allows
using specific tools to describe different aspects of
an interaction. In the MIM model there is a metadata
element that corresponds to each ECA component.
The Event element corresponds to the trigger of an
interaction. The trigger is a change of a selected
property of some object or a virtual environment in
which the interaction occurs. The Condition element
describes the context of an interaction. The context
represents a state of selected objects or the virtual
environment that is required to allow the action. The
Action element matches the object reaction. The
reaction describes how the object changes itself in a
reply to the event in a given context. Each metadata
element provides formal and semantic description
KDIR 2009 - International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval
162

tools and is associated with an XML Schema [XML
Schema] defining how interaction metadata
documents can be encoded in XML format. Details
of all three elements are described below.
Figure 1: Multimedia Interaction Model overview.
3.1 Event
An event is a change of the state of a trigger object.
The state change is defined as a change of a value of
any object parameter. In the MIM model, the Event
element is related to a change of a single parameter,
but interaction metadata can include many Event
elements. The Event element contains a set of
preconditions that need to be satisfied to trigger a
particular interaction. These preconditions include
information about what has to change to trigger an
interaction, and where in 3D space the change has to
occur to be noticed. The first part – what has to
change – is described by an object parameter type.
To trigger an event, object parameter that is
modified, have to be of specified object parameter
type. The second part, which describes where in 3D
space the change has to occur, is a specification of a
fragment of 3D space, called 3D interaction space.
To satisfy the location precondition, the event has to
occur inside the specified 3D interaction space.
The specification of object parameter type
(represented in metadata by Parameter element) is
accompanied by optional arguments. It is due to the
fact, that some parameters are functions, and
therefore need some initial arguments to provide a
value. An example of such parameter is 3D
Dimension, which is a distance between two furthest
points of an object measured along a given vector.
The 3D interaction space is represented by a set
of 3D spaces and 3D viewpoints. In the MIM
implementation, both elements are defined with
tools taken from the X3D [X3D] language. A 3D
space is defined by the X3DGeometry, which
provides wide range of tools for defining 3D
geometry, from primitive geometry forms, to
complex sets of triangles or faces. By default, the
geometry is positioned in the center of the
interacting object. The geometry can be repositioned
in space with X3D transformation tools. The
transformation is always done relatively to the
interacting object coordinate system. If no geometry
or viewpoints are specified the 3D interaction space
is equal to the whole 3D Virtual World.
3.2 Condition
A condition is a set of requirements set on the states
of all objects taking part in an interaction, i.e. the
trigger object, the interacting object and the
environment. Environment is a special case of an
object. It does not have geometry, but can have some
ambient parameters of the 3D world that are taken
into account in the interaction. All requirements of
the condition have to be satisfied to trigger an
action.
In the Condition element of the MIM model, the
set of requirements is written as a mathematical
description of a form of a logical expression. Single
logical expression represents all condition
requirements. Such approach allows setting logical
relations between different requirements, which can
be something else than just AND operation.
Semantic description of a condition may be used as a
substitute or an enhancement of the mathematical
description. The Condition element of MIM
metadata is optional and can be omitted. In such
case the action will be executed at each occurrence
of the event.
In the MIM implementation, the Condition
logical expression is written in MathML content
notation according to mathml:condition.type type.
The logical expression may use symbols
representing variables and constants. Each variable
represents a value of a specified parameter type of
the trigger object, the environment or the interacting
object. Moreover, it is possible to refer parameter
values either before or after the event. It allows
using also the relative change of a value, not only an
absolute value. A constant is a value defined
according to a data type of a particular parameter
type.
3.3 Action
An action is a change of the state of an interacting
object. In the MIM model, the Action element
describes the outcome of an action, a new object
state expressed as a mathematical and/or semantic
description of new values of object parameters.
There are two possible types of action: simple
action and complex action. The simple action is
BUILDING EXTENSIBLE 3D INTERACTION METADATA WITH INTERACTION INTERFACE CONCEPT
163

when only a single object parameter is modified. In
such case, mathematical expression can be used to
calculate new parameter value, while the semantic
description may provide more information about the
change. The complex action occurs when more than
one parameter value is modified. Again, single
parameter change can be described with
mathematical and/or semantic tools forming a
parameter change descriptor, but there is more. It is
possible to group some parameter change descriptors
together and form a tree of such groups. Each node
of such tree can be described with additional
semantic description providing more abstract
information on different levels of detail. In the MIM
implementation, complex actions are made with
recurring schema design, which allows any action
element to contain an arbitrary number of sub-
actions. Evaluation of an action on different levels of
detail makes it possible to match an object even if
the query uses high level terms.
The implementation of the Action element of the
MIM model uses MathML content notation for
mathematical expressions. Expressions are written
according to mathml:apply.type type and use
variables and constants in the same way as
mathematical expression in the Condition element of
the MIM model.
4 INTERACTION INTERFACE
CONCEPT
The Interaction Interface (II) concept is used to
describe the API of an object in terms of functions
and attributes related to object interactions. Both
elements of the API are represented by object
parameter types of the Interactive Interface and are
accompanied with semantic descriptions. Interaction
interfaces are used in metadata as object interaction
characteristic and as a dictionary of parameter types
referenced in the Multimedia Interaction Model.
An interaction interface groups object parameter
types that have similar semantics, e.g. object
parameter types related to object visual
characteristics or object parameter types related to
object internal properties. An object implements a
given interaction interface if the set of object
parameter types is a superset of the set of parameter
types of this interaction interface. To enable creation
of interaction metadata, each interactive 3D object
has to implement at least one interaction interface.
Interaction Interface concept provides a schema
for definition of new interaction interfaces and
parameter types. Each interaction interface is
composed of a name, ID and a set of object
parameter types. The definition of an interaction
interface can be also extended with a semantic
description. The interaction interface name is only
informative, while its ID is used in metadata
descriptions as a prefix in references to parameter
types defined in a particular interaction interface.
Definition of new parameter types is based on a
separate schema described below. The semantic
description of an interaction interface does not
provide direct information about parameter types.
Hence it does not influence efficiency of interactive
object searches. However it can be useful for
discovery and exchange of definitions of particular
interaction interfaces.
Figure 2: Interaction Interface schema.
The interaction interface schema is implemented
as an XML Schema document. All schema
information is contained in two attributes: ID and
name, and two elements ParameterType and
Semantics. The name attribute is optional. Each
interaction interface definition may contain one or
more ParameterType elements and zero or one
Semantics element.
Definition of a parameter type is composed of an
ID, definition or reference of parameter values data
type, definition of possible arguments, semantic
description and relation to a concept in some
ontology. The parameter type ID is used to reference
a particular parameter type in interaction metadata.
The data type information is necessary to allow
search engines properly interpret and process values
of interaction parameters. The data type definition is
based on XML Schema which provides a large set of
type definition tools. Additionally, the usage of
XML Schema allows using references to data types
defined in other standards. Some parameter types
may represent object functions that require attributes
to provide resulting value (e.g. object dimension
KDIR 2009 - International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval
164

along a given vector). The parameter type attributes
are composed of a name used to reference a
particular attribute and definition of a data type of
attribute value. The data type of an attribute value is
defined in the same way as the data type of
parameter value – using XML Schema. Apart from
technical elements, the definition of a parameter
type may contain optional semantic description and
optional relation to an ontology concept. Both fields
are intended to help search engines interpret the
meaning of parameter types and process user queries
that include just some keywords and do not include
exact identifiers of object parameters.
Figure 3: Parameter Type schema.
The ParameterType schema element pictured in
fig. 3 contains a mandatory ID attribute and four
elements: DataType, Argument, Semantics and
Ontology. The DataType element contains a
definition of a data type of parameter values and it is
mandatory. The Argument element may occur zero
or more times and contain name and definition of a
data type of a parameter argument. The Semantics
element is of the mpeg7:TextAnnotationType type
and contains semantic description of a parameter
type. The last element, Ontology, can occur zero or
more times and it is a relation to a concept in an
external ontology system. The Ontology element
includes two attributes, which are URIs of an
ontology and a concept within this ontology.
4.1 Visual Interaction Interface
The Interaction Interface concept provides a method
of defining new parameter types. Specific parameter
types should be grouped based on their semantics or
usage. Therefore new interaction interfaces will be
defined per domain or per application. However,
there are some common properties of all 3D objects
that allow forming an interaction interface common
for all objects. This interaction interface is called:
Visual Interaction Interface. It represents object
parameter types related to object visual
characteristics: geometry, position and appearance
and can be used to build metadata of visual and
geometrical interactions. The Visual Interaction
Interface includes object parameter types for
describing variuos aspects of object size
(SizeBoundigBox, SizeBoundingSphere, SizeDi-
mension), shape (ShapePrimitive, ShapeFaceSet,
ShapeCustom, ShapeContour, ShapeRegion), posi-
tion (PositionCenter, PositionCollision), orientation
and appearance (AppearanceTexture, Appearance-
TextureHomogeneous, AppearanceColor, Appear-
anceColorDominant, AppearanceColorLayout, Ap-
pearanceColorStructure, AppearanceTransparency).
Data types of these parameter types are based on
MPEG-7 descriptors, X3D nodes and custom data
types expressed with XML Schema tools.
5 INTERFACE DEFINITION
RULES
Apart from the Interaction Interface schema, the
Interaction Interface concept contains also a set of
Interaction Interface Definition Rules that describe
requirements related to defining new interaction
interfaces. Especially new object parameter types.
5.1 General Definition Rules
1. II definition consists of an interface name, ID
and a set of object parameter types.
2. Name of an II has to be a unique free-text
description depicting semantics of object
parameter types contained in this II. Examples:
• Visual Interaction Interface
• Aural Interaction Interface
• Inventory Interaction Interface
3. ID of an II has to be a unique and short acronym
of the II name. If the name uses a term
“Interaction Interface”, then the acronym of that
term has to be II and it has to be prefixed with a
‘-‘ character. Examples:
• V-II
• A-II
• I-II
4. Set of object parameter types has to group all
object parameter types that are logically related,
BUILDING EXTENSIBLE 3D INTERACTION METADATA WITH INTERACTION INTERFACE CONCEPT
165

i.e. they have similar semantics. The decision on
exactly which object parameter types should be
grouped together depends on the given
application and domain and is left to the author
of the interface.
5. New II may be defined as an extension of an
existing II. The extending II has new name, new
identifier and a set of object parameter types
which is a superset of the set of object parameter
types of the extended II.
5.2 Object Parameter Type Definition
Rules
1. Object parameter type (OPT) definition consists
of an identifier, a semantic description, a
specification of a data type of values of object
parameters of this object parameter type and a
specification of arguments required to evaluate
the object parameter function. OPT identifier has
the following syntax:
[interaction interface ID].
[object parameter type name]
2. Object parameter type name has to represent its
semantics and has to be written in camel-capped
notation with a leading upper-case character.
Examples:
• V-II.SizeBoundingBox
• A-II.Waveform
• I-II.NumberOfItems
3. Semantic description of an OPT has to depict its
meaning. The semantic description has to be
expressed in one of two forms:
• Text annotation based on MPEG-7
TextAnnotation data type, which allows free
text, keyword, structured and dependency
structure annotations.
• Relation to an ontology concept formulated as a
URI.
4. Data type specification of an OPT has to be
written using tools defined in XML Schema
specification.
5. OPT arguments specification has to list all
arguments required to evaluate an object
parameter function. An argument description has
to contain argument name and argument data
type.
6. Argument name has to depict its meaning and
has to be unique in the scope of the OPT.
7. Data type of an argument has to be specified in
the same way as a data type of the OPT.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The presented Multimedia Interaction Model,
exemplified in (Chmielewski, ECMS 2008), is a
complete solution for describing object interaction
characteristics. Moreover, the Interaction Interface
concept allows using the MIM model in ways that
are not limited to any particular domain. For
example, the MIM solution can be easily employed
for describing 3D representations of body parts used
in medicine or for describing some interactive
objects in game development industry. With small
modifications, namely definition of new interaction
interfaces, the presented solution for building
interaction metadata can be even more general. It
can be used to describe any interactive entity, even if
it is not a 3D object, for example a role in automatic
negotiations or a software component.
The domain of interaction metadata for
autonomous, reusable interactive 3D objects is in
early stages of development. There are many areas
open for research. First and most obvious area is
research of search engines and comparison
algorithms for interaction properties. Second is
related with interaction properties descriptors. Some
of such descriptors could be calculated directly from
the object definition making the metadata creation
process faster and more efficient. Moreover,
different applications will require different
interaction interfaces. Therefore the third area of
potential research is related to development of
universal interaction interfaces and tools for
publishing and discovery of such interfaces. With
such tools producers of sliding doors could post
libraries of 3D representations of their products that
are described with a domain specific interaction
interfaces. Making these libraries searchable and
allowing for CAD system extensions that connect
with object libraries spread through the Internet and
automatically find objects best suited for a given
design, could make architect/designer life much
easier.
REFERENCES
AAF, AAF Object Specification v1.1, 2005, Available:
http://www.aafassociation.org/html/techinfo/index.htm
Bilasco I.M., Gensel J., Villanova-Oliver M., Martin H.
2005. On indexing of 3D scenes using MPEG-7, in
KDIR 2009 - International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval
166

Proceedings of the ACM Multimedia 2005, Singapore,
2005, pp. 471-474
Bilasco I.M., Gensel J., Villanova-Oliver M., Martin H.
2006. An MPEG-7 framework enhancing the reuse of
3D models, in Proceedings of Web3D Symposium
2006, Columbia, Maryland USA, 2006, pp. 65-74
Bry F. Patrânjan P. 2005. Reactivity on the web:
paradigms and applications of the language XChange,
in Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Symposium on
Applied Computing, Santa Fe, New Mexico USA,
2005, pp. 1645-1649
Chmielewski J. 2008. Metadata Model for Interaction of
3D Objects. In Proceedings of the 1st International
IEEE Conference on Information Technology IT’08,
Gdansk, Poland, May 1821, 2008, pp. 313-316
Chmielewski
J. 2008. Architectural Modeling with
Reusable Interactive 3D Objects, in Proceedings of the
22nd European Conference on Modelling and
Simulation ECMS’08, Nicosia, Cyprus, June 3-6,
2008, pp. 555-561
Dayal
U. et al. 1988. HiPAC: a Research Project in Active,
Time-Constrained Database Management, Interim
Report, Technical Report XAIT-88-02, Xerox
Advanced Information Technology, June 1988
DCMES: Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1,
2008, Available:
http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/
DIG35: Digital Imaging Group, DIG35 Specification,
Metadata for Digital Images 1.0, 2000, Available:
http://xml.coverpages.org/FU-Berlin-DIG35-v10-
Sept00.pdf
EXIF: Japan Electronics and Information Technology
Industries Association (JEITA) Standard, JEITA CP-
3451, Exchangeable image file format for digital still
cameras: Exif Version 2.2, 2002, Available:
http://www.exif.org/Exif2-2.PDF
ID3, ID3 Informal standard, ID3 tag version 2.4.0, 2000,
Available: http://www.id3.org/id3v2.4.0-frames
Lorenz
B., Ohlbach H.J., Stoffel E.P. 2006. A Hybrid
Spatial Model for Representing Indoor Environments,
in Proceedings of W2GIS 2006, LNCS 4295, Hong
Kong, China, 2006, pp. 102-112
Martinez
J. M. et al., MPEG-7 Overview, 2004, Available:
http://www.chiariglione.org/MPEG/standards/mpeg-
7/mpeg-7.htm
MPEG-7,
ISO/IEC 15938, ISO International Standard,
Information technology – Multimedia content
description interface Available:
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/
popstds/mpeg.html
MXF: SMPTE 377M-2004 Television Material Exchange
Format (MXF) Standard – File Format Specification,
2004, Available: http://store.smpte.org/
Ottosson S., Virtual reality in the product development
process. Journal of Engineering Design, Volume 13,
Issue 2 June 2002, pp. 159 - 172
Papamarkos
G., Poulovassilis A., Wood PT. 2003. Event-
Condition-Action Rule Languages for the Semantic
Web. Workshop on Semantic Web and Databases,
2003
Pitarello
F., de Faveri A. 2006. Semantic Description of
3D Environments: a Proposal Based on Web
Standards. In Proceedings of Web3D Symposium
2006, Columbia, Maryland USA, 2006, pp. 85-95
P/META: EBU Metadata Exchange Scheme (EBU P/Meta)
2.0, EBU Tech 3295-v2, 2007, Available:
http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/metadata/specification
s/index.php
Stone, R. J., 2001 Virtual Reality in the Real World: A
Personal Reflection on 12 Years of Human-Centred
Endeavour, in Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Artificial Reality and Telexistence,
ICAT '01, Tokyo, Japan, December 5-7, 2001, pp. 23-
32
Swartz A. 2002. MusicBrainz: A Semantic Web Service.
IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 17, no. 1, Jan/Feb,
2002, 76-77
Thome
B., Gawlick D., Pratt M. 2005. Event processing
with an oracle database, in Proceedings of the 2005
ACM SIGMOD International Conference on
Management of Data, Baltimore, Maryland USA,
2005, pp. 863-867
Walczak
K. 2006. Beh-VR: Modeling Behavior of
Dynamic Virtual Reality Contents. In Proceedings of
the 12th International Conference on Virtual Systems
and Multimedia VSMM 2006. In: H. Zha et al. (Eds.):
Interactive Technologies and Sociotechnical Systems,
Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences 4270, Springer
Verlag Heidelberg 2006, pp. 40-51
Walczak,
K., Flex-VR: Configurable 3D Web
Applications, in Proceedings of the International
Conference on Human System Interaction HIS’08,
Krakow, Poland, May 25-27, 2008, pp. 135-140
X3D, 2004. ISO/IEC 19775-1:2004, Information
technology -- Computer graphics and image
processing -- Extensible 3D (X3D) – Part 1:
Architecture and base components
XML Schema, 2004. W3C Recommendation, Available:
http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema
Z39.87: NISO American National Standard, ANSI/NISO
Z39.87-2006, Data Dictionary – Technical Metadata
for Digital Still Images, 2001, Available:
http://www.niso.org/kst/reports/standards/
Zhou X., Zhang S.,Cao J., DAI K. 2004. Event Condition
Action Rule Based Intelligent Agent Architecture,
Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University, Volume 38,
Issue 1, January 2004, pp. 14-17
BUILDING EXTENSIBLE 3D INTERACTION METADATA WITH INTERACTION INTERFACE CONCEPT
167