1. Enriching 3D Collections
Sebastian Pena Serna
Fraunhofer-Institut für Graphische Datenverarbeitung
IGD
Fraunhoferstraße 5
64283 Darmstadt
Tel +49 6151 155 – 468
sebastian.pena.serna@igd.fraunhofer.de
www.igd.fraunhofer.de
© Fraunhofer IGD

2. Definitions
3D Collection
 Digital archive with multimedia material and 3D artifacts, which is
associated with semantic information
Building
 Acquisition and ingestion of digital assets and their corresponding
provenance information
Accessing
 Browsing and exploration of digital assets in the 3D collection
Enriching
 Increasing the associations within the semantic network
2
© Fraunhofer IGD

3. Workflow with 3D collections
3
© Fraunhofer IGD

4. Workflow with 3D collections
: s
d ing roces
uil and p
Be
q uir
ac
4
© Fraunhofer IGD

5. Workflow with 3D collections
Accessing:
search and browse
: s
d ing roces
uil and p
Be
q uir
ac
5
© Fraunhofer IGD

6. Workflow with 3D collections
Accessing:
search and browse
: s vie En
d ing roces w ric
an h
uil and p
Be d in
an g
uir no :
q ta
ac te
6
© Fraunhofer IGD

7. Building a 3D collection
: s
d ing roces
uil and p
Be
q uir
ac
7
© Fraunhofer IGD

8. Multimedia Information
Collections management Conservation
Images
Bibliographic
8
© Fraunhofer IGD

9. Digitization
 3D geometry
 Material properties
 Digital provenance
9
© Fraunhofer IGD

10. Processing
 Improve the quality of 3D artifacts
 Process 3D artifacts for different purposes (e.g. research,
presentation)
10
© Fraunhofer IGD

11. Provenance
 Legacy and rich processing metadata
used_as_derivation_source
A.15-1955-dome-out.zip used_as_derivation_source
IvoryPanel
3IvoPan_LegacyData.rdf
3IvoPan_LegacyData.rdf 2009CA5307v
Coloured.ply
4Ivory_Arc3DPro
4Ivory_Arc3DPro Arc3D-A.15-1955_dmy.v3d 5Ivory_MeshLa
5Ivory_MeshLa
cEvent.rdf
cEvent.rdf bProcEvent.rdf
bProcEvent.rdf
has_created created_derivative
digitized created_derivative
Legend
A.15-1955-dome-
A.15-1955-dome-
forms_part_of out.rdf
out.rdf
2009CR4851_0.rdf
2009CR4851_0.rdf has_created Digitization_Process
1IvoryPanel_Ob
1IvoryPanel_Ob
jAcqEvent.rdf
jAcqEvent.rdf forms_part_of … 2009CR4851_0.tif Formal_Derivation
2009CA5306_0.rdf
2009CA5306_0.rdf …
forms_part_of 2IvoryPanel_
2IvoryPanel_ forms_part_of Sub-events
DocEvent.rdf
DocEvent.rdf has_created 2009CA5306_0.tif
Data_Object
Man_Made_Object
11
© Fraunhofer IGD

12. Ingestion
 Individual objects with high-  Large acquisition campaigns
quality metadata with similar structures
12
© Fraunhofer IGD

13. Accessing a 3D collection
Accessing:
search and browse
13
© Fraunhofer IGD

14. Metadata Accessing
Stanford Repository
 3D artifacts without
searchable metadata
http://www-graphics.stanford.edu/data/3Dscanrep/
14
© Fraunhofer IGD

15. Metadata Accessing
AIM@SHAPE
 3D artifacts with basic
searchable metadata, e.g.
categories, keywords
http://shapes.aim-at-shape.net/
15
© Fraunhofer IGD

16. Metadata Accessing
3D-COFORM
 3D artifacts with rich
metadata
 Fundamental categories
and relationships
 Searchable material and
shape properties
16
© Fraunhofer IGD

17. User Accessing
Administrator
17
© Fraunhofer IGD

18. User Accessing
CH professional
18
© Fraunhofer IGD

19. User Accessing
Internet user
19
© Fraunhofer IGD

20. Enriching a 3D collection
vie En
w ric
an h
d in
an g
no :
ta
te
20
© Fraunhofer IGD

21. 3D Shape Annotation
Aim: associate digital 3D shapes with related information and knowledge
on the represented object
Annotation: mechanism for enriching digital 3D shapes with semantics
Result: annotated shape or a semantically enriched shape, combining:
 the geometric description
 contextual information
 knowledge of the represented object
 the created relationships
© Fraunhofer IGD

22. Sponsors
Projects:
 AIM@SHAPE (http://www.aimatshape.net/)
 Focus K3D (http://www.focusk3d.eu/)
 3D-COFORM (www.3d-coform.eu)
 V-MusT (http://www.v-must.net/)
 Enhancing Engagement with 3D Heritage Data through Semantic Annotation (
http://www.ddsgsa.net/projects/empire/Empire/Home.html)
 Semantic Annotations for 3D Artefacts (http://itee.uq.edu.au/~eresearch/projects/3dsa)
Technologies:
 Linking Open Data (
http://esw.w3.org/SweoIG/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenData)
 3D Internet (Alpcan et al. 2007 [33])
© Fraunhofer IGD

23. Annotation Process
© Fraunhofer IGD

24. Annotation Process
© Fraunhofer IGD

25. Geometric Definition
Aim:
 Understand the intrinsic
structure of the digital 3D
shape (Attene et al. 2006
[1], De Floriani et al. 2010
[2])
 Associate semantics with
relevant part(s) of the digital
3D shape (Spagnuolo and
Felcidieno 2009 [3])
© Fraunhofer IGD

26. Geometric Definition
Techniques:
 Sketching, painting, outlining, fitting, segmenting, and structuring
 These are driven by different principles (Attene at al. 2006 [4],
Shamir 2008 [5] and Chen et al. 2009 [6])
© Fraunhofer IGD

27. Geometric Definition
Principles:
 RANSAC (Schnabel et al. 2007 [7])
 Curvature analysis (Madeira et al. 2007 [8])
 Contour analysis (Liu and Zhang 2007 [9])
 Discrete operators (Reuter et al. 2009 [10])
 Physics (Fang et al. 2011 [11])
 Concavity (Au et al. 2011 [12])
© Fraunhofer IGD

28. Geometric Definition
Strategies:
Hierarchical segmentation (Shapira et al. 2010 [13], Wang
et al. 2011 [14], Ho and Chuang 2011 [15])
© Fraunhofer IGD

29. Geometric Definition
Strategies:
 Combination of geometric principles with other concepts about
the represented shape (Attene et al. 2009 [16], Golovinsliy and
Fankhouser 2009 [17], Kalogerakis et al. 2010 [18]).
© Fraunhofer IGD

30. Geometric Definition
Strategies:
 Skeletons to identify the structure of the digital 3D (Tierny et al. 2007
[19], Shapira et al. 2008 [20]) and/or by means of fitting primitives
(Attene et al. 2006 [21]).
© Fraunhofer IGD

31. Geometric Definition
Strategies:
 User assisted segmentation
for complex digital 3D shapes
or for additional requirements,
e.g. functions or styles (De
Floriani et al. 2008 [22], Miao
et al. 2009 [23], Bergamasco
et al. 2011 [24]).
© Fraunhofer IGD

32. Geometric Definition
Strategies:
Manual segmentation, sketching (Ji et al. 2006 [25]),
painting (Papaleo and De Floriani 2010 [26]) or outlining
regions (Pena Serna et al. 2011 [27]).
© Fraunhofer IGD

33. Geometric Definition
Strategies:
Segmentation refinement (Klaplansky and Tal 2009 [28]).
© Fraunhofer IGD

34. Geometric Definition
Specific Requirements:
Scenes (Knopp et al.
2011 [29])
Developable segments
(Julius et al. 2005 [30])
Best view (Mortara and
Spagnuolo 2009 [31]).
Identify adjectives (Simari
et al. 2009 [32])
© Fraunhofer IGD

35. Geometric Definition
Challenges:
Difficult to generate a plausible and context-aware geometric
definition for different classes of objects.
The current strategies cannot easily be mapped to the different
applications’ requirements within a given domain.
There are few approaches trying to map principles to specific
applications’ requirements.
A combination of principles, strategies and user guidance could
generate the expected results.
© Fraunhofer IGD

36. Annotation Process
© Fraunhofer IGD

37. Structured Information and Knowledge
There is a vast amount of existent information and
knowledge related to any digital 3D shape:
Information related to the intrinsic structure of the 3D
shape
Information related to the meaning of the represented
object
Information related to the digital provenance
Knowledge related to the application domain
© Fraunhofer IGD

38. Structured Information and Knowledge
Structured Information for describing the intrinsic structure
of the digital 3D shape (Papaleo and De Floriani 2010 [26],
Attene et al. 2009 [16]).
© Fraunhofer IGD

39. Structured Information and Knowledge
Structured Information for describing digital 3D shapes using
concepts within a particular domain (Catalano et al. 2009
[34], De Luca et al. 2011 [35], Mortara et al. 2006 [36]).
© Fraunhofer IGD

40. Structured Information and Knowledge
Structured Information in the engineering domain
 Product and Manufacturing Information (PMI)
 Geometric Dimensions and Tolerances (GD&T)
 Functional Tolerancing and Annotation (FT&A).
 Standard ASME Y14.41-2003 Digital Product
Data Definition Practices
 ISO 1101:2004 Geometrical Product
Specifications (GPS) - Geometrical tolerancing.
(Spatial Corp.)
© Fraunhofer IGD

41. Structured Information and Knowledge
Structured Information in the Cultural Heritage domain
based on CIDOC-CRM http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/ (Rodriguez-
Echavarria et al. 2009 [37], Havemann et al. 2009 [38]).
© Fraunhofer IGD

42. Annotation Process
© Fraunhofer IGD

43. Mechanisms for Annotating
Different mechanisms have been proposed, which vary
depending on:
application domain
degree of user intervention that they require
technology supporting them
degree of structured information which they involve.
© Fraunhofer IGD

44. Mechanisms for Annotating
Application domain
 Product design (Andre and Sorito
2002 [39])
 Architecture (Pittarello and Gatto
2011 [40])
 Cultural Heritage (Hunter and Gerber
2010 [41])
 Chemistry (Gawronski and Dumontier
2011 [42])
 Medicine (Trzupek et al. 2011 [43])
© Fraunhofer IGD

45. Mechanisms for Annotating
User intervention
Semi-automatic mechanisms normally require of a degree
of user intervention to define an annotation (Shapira et al.
2010 [13], Kalogerakis et al. 2010 [18]).
© Fraunhofer IGD

46. Mechanisms for Annotating
Supporting technology:
stand-alone modeling
systems
stand-alone 3D viewers Siemens NX
(Pena Serna et al. 2011
[27])
web based viewers (Hunter
et al. 2010 [44])
© Fraunhofer IGD

47. Annotation Process
© Fraunhofer IGD

48. Representation of the Annotation
Approach to structure, store and transmit the annotating
process output
Important for the annotation’s indexing, retrieval and
reutilization.
There is no agreed format for this.
© Fraunhofer IGD

49. Representation of the Annotation
Strategies: Persistent annotations
Store the annotation in a database based on a semantic
model.
The model describes the associations or relations between
different media ([16], [27], Hunter et al. 2010 [45]).
© Fraunhofer IGD

50. Representation of the Annotation
Strategies: Transient annotations
 Store and transmit annotations in a data file.
 MPEG-7 (Bilasco et al. 2006 [46])
 VRML / X3D (Pittarello and Faveri 2006 [47], [40], [26])
 Jupiter (JT) Data Format
 Product Representation Compact (PRC) Data Format
 COLLADA ([37], [38])
 Universal 3D Data Format
 ASME Y14.41 Digital Product Definition Data Practices
© Fraunhofer IGD

51. Representation of the Annotation
Issues:
 Stability, flexibility and easy of use
 There is no notion of annotation representation.
 It is considered as a piece of text, which is stored in a database or as a
tag on a digital 3D shape.
 Annotations’ interoperability
 Degree of independency from transient digital 3D shapes.
© Fraunhofer IGD

52. Enriching a 3D collection
Challenges and Opportunities
This remains an active area of research. Different challenges need to be
solved to fully support a semantic enrichment pipeline:
 Automatically extracting information from a digital 3D shape
 Modeling semantic information
 Automatically linking it to the digital 3D shape
 Using standards to store, interoperate, and preserve annotations in the
long term
© Fraunhofer IGD

53. Enriching a 3D collection
Challenges and Opportunities
Opportunities of using semantically aware 3D shapes:
 searching 3D shapes
 intelligently interacting with semantically aware 3D shapes
 shape matching or deriving meaning of new shapes
 high-level editing
 goal oriented 3D synthesizing
 knowledge management
 semantic visualization and interaction
© Fraunhofer IGD

54. Workflow with 3D collections
Accessing:
search and browse
: s vie En
d ing roces w ric
an h
uil and p
Be d in
an g
uir no :
q ta
ac te
54
© Fraunhofer IGD

55. Enabling Technologies
Cloud Computing
 Storage and computation
capacity online
3D Internet
 Visualization of 3D artifacts on
standard web browsers
Mobile devices
 Access and visualization on the
move
55
© Fraunhofer IGD

56. Emerging Challenges
 Define workflows
 Create services
 Enable intuitive access
 Provide contextualized interfaces
User involvement and engagement
56
© Fraunhofer IGD

57. References
 [1] ATTENE M., BIASOTTI S., MORTARA M., PATANÉ G., SPAGNUOLO M., FALCIDIENO B.: Computational methods for understanding 3D shapes. Computers & Graphics
30, 3 (June 2006), 323–333.
 [2] DE FLORIANI L., MAGILLO P., PAPALEO L., PUPPO E.: Shape modeling and understanding: Research trends and results of the G3 group at DISI.
 [3] SPAGNUOLO M., FALCIDIENO B.: 3D media and the semantic web. IEEE Intelligent Systems (March/April 2009), 90–96.
 [4] ATTENE M., KATZ S., MORTARA M., PATANÉ G., SPAGNUOLO M., TAL A.: Mesh segmentation - a comparative study. In Shape Modeling International (2006).
 [5] SHAMIR A.: A survey on mesh segmentation techniques. Computer Graphics Forum 27, 6 (2008), 1539–1556.
 [6] CHEN X., GOLOVINSKIY A., FUNKHOUSER T.: A benchmark for 3D mesh segmentation. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2009 papers (New Orleans, Louisiana, 2009), ACM, pp. 1–
12.
 [7] SCHNABEL R., WAHL R., KLEIN R.: Efficient RANSAC for Point-Cloud shape detection. Computer Graphics forum 26, Number 2 (June 2007), 214–226.
 [8] MADEIRA J., SILVA S., STORK A., PENA SERNA S.: Principal Curvature-Driven segmentation of mesh models: A preliminary assessment. In 15 EPCG - Encontro
Português de Computação Gráfica. (2007).
 [9] LIU R., ZHANG H.: Mesh segmentation via spectral embedding and contour analysis. Volume 26 (2007), Number 3.
 [10] REUTER M., BIASOTTI S., GIORGI D., PATANÉ G., SPAGNUOLO M.: Discrete Laplace-Beltrami operators for shape analysis and segmentation. Computers & Graphics
33, 3 (June 2009), 381–390.
 [11] FANG Y., SUN M., KIM M.: Heat-Mapping: a robust approach toward perceptually consistent mesh segmentation. IEEE Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
2011 (2011), pp 2145–2152.
 [12] AU O. K., ZHENG Y., CHEN M., XU P., TAI C.: Mesh segmentation with concavity-aware fields. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comp. Graphics (2011).
 [13] SHAPIRA L., SHALOM S., SHAMIR A., COHEN-OR D., ZHANG H.: Contextual part analogies in 3D objects. Int. J. Comput. Vision 89, 2-3 (2010), 309–326.
 [14] WANG Y., XU K., LI J., ZHANG H., SHAMIR A., LIU L., CHENG Z., XIONG Y.: Symmetry hierarchy of Man-Made objects. Computer Graphics Forum 30, 2 (2011), 287–
296.
 [15] HO T., CHUANG J.: Volume based mesh segmentation. Journal of Information Science and Engineering 27 (2011).
 [16] ATTENE M., ROBBIANO F., SPAGNUOLO M., FALCIDIENO B.: Characterization of 3D shape parts for semantic annotation. Computer-Aided Design 41, 10 (Oct. 2009),
756–763.
 [17] GOLOVINSKIY A., FUNKHOUSER T.: Consistent segmentation of 3D models. Computers & Graphics 33, 3 (June 2009), 262–269.
 [18] KALOGERAKIS E., HERTZMANN A., SINGH K.: Learning 3D Mesh Segmentation and Labeling. ACM Transactions on Graphics 29, 3 (2010).
© Fraunhofer IGD

58. References
 [19] TIERNY J., VANDEBORRE J.-P., DAOUDI M.: Topology driven 3d mesh hierarchical segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Shape
Modeling and Applications 2007 (Washington, DC, USA, 2007), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 215–220.
 [20] SHAPIRA L., SHAMIR A., COHEN-OR D.: Consistent mesh partitioning and skeletonisation using the shape diameter function. The Visual Computer: International Journal
of Computer Graphics 24, 4 (Mar. 2008).
 [21] ATTENE M., FALCIDIENO B., SPAGNUOLO M.: Hierarchical mesh segmentation based on fitting primitives. The Visual Computer: International Journal of Computer
Graphics 22 (2006), 181–193.
 [22] DE FLORIANI L., PAPALEO L., CARISSIMI N.: A Java3D framework for inspecting and segmenting 3D models. In Proceedings of the 13th international symposium on 3D
web technology (Los Angeles, California, 2008), ACM, pp. 67–74.
 [23] MIAO Y., FENG J., WANG J., JIN X.: User-controllable mesh segmentation using shape harmonic signature. Progress in Natural Science 19, 4 (Apr. 2009), 471–478.
 [24] BERGAMASCO F., ALBARELLI A., TORSELLO A.: Semi-supervised segmentation of 3D surfaces using a weighted graph representation. In Proceedings of the 8th
international conference on Graph-based representations in pattern recognition (GbRPR’11) (2011).
 [25] JI Z., LIU L., CHEN Z., WANG G.: Easy mesh cutting. Computer Graphics Forum 25, 3 (2006), 283–291.
 [26] PAPALEO L., DE FLORIANI L.: Manual segmentation and semantic-based hierarchical tagging of 3D models. (2010) pp. 25–32.
 [27] PENA SERNA S., SCOPIGNO R., DOERR M., THEODORIDOU M., GEORGIS C., PONCHIO F., STORK A.: 3D-centered media linking and semantic enrichment through
integrated searching, browsing, viewing and annotating. In VAST11: The 12th International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Intelligent Cultural Heritage (Prato,
Italy, 2011).
 [28] KAPLANSKY L., TAL A.: Mesh segmentation refinement. In Computer Graphics Forum (Pacific Graphics), 28(7) (Oct. 2009), pp. 1995–2003.
 [29] KNOPP J., PRASAD M. , VAN GOOL L. : Scene Cut: Class-specific Object Detection and Segmentation in 3D Scenes. In 3DIMPVT, Hangzhou, 2011
 [30] JULIUS D., KRAEVOY V., SHEFFER A.: D-charts: Quasi-developable mesh segmentation. In Computer Graphics Forum, Proceedings of Eurographics 2005 (Dublin,
Ireland, 2005), vol. 24, Eurographics, Blackwell, pp. 581–590.
 [31] MORTARA M., SPAGNUOLO M.: Semantics-driven best view of 3D shapes. Computers & Graphics 33, 3 (June 2009), 280–290.
 [32] SIMARI P., NOWROUZEZAHRAI D., KALOGERAKIS E., SINGH K.: Multi-objective shape segmentation and labeling. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Geometry
Processing (Berlin, Germany, 2009), Eurographics Association, pp. 1415–1425.
 [33] ALPCAN T., BAUCKHAGE C., KOTSOVINOS E.: Towards 3d internet: Why, what, and how? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Cyberworlds CW ’07
(October 2007), pp. 95 – 99.
 [34] CATALANO C., CAMOSSI E., FERRANDES R., CHEUTET V., SEVILMIS N.: A product design ontology for enhancing shape processing in design workflows. Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing 20, 5 (Oct. 2009), 553–567. 3
© Fraunhofer IGD

59. References
 [35] LUCA L. D., BUSAYARAT C., STEFANI C., VÉRON P., FLORENZANO M.: A semantic-based platform for the digital analysis of architectural heritage. Computers &
Graphics 35, 2 (Apr. 2011), 227–241.
 [36] MORTARA M., PATANÉ G., SPAGNUOLO M.: From geometric to semantic human body models. Computers&Graphics 30, 2 (Apr. 2006), 185–196.
 [37] RODRIGUEZ ECHAVARRIA K., MORRIS D., ARNOLD D.: Web based presentation of semantically tagged 3D content for public sculptures and monuments in the UK. In
Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on 3D Web Technology (Darmstadt, Germany, 2009), ACM, pp. 119–126.
 [38] HAVEMANN S., SETTGAST V., BERNDT R., EIDE., FELLNER D. W.: The Arrigo showcase reloaded - towards a sustainable link between 3D and semantics. J. Comput.
Cult. Herit. 2, 1 (2009), 1–13.
 [39] ANDRE P., SORITO R.: Product manufacturing information (PMI) in 3D models: a basis for collaborative engineering in product creation process (PCP). In 14th European
Simulation Symposium and Exhibition (2002).
 [40] PITTARELLO F., GATTO I.: ToBoA-3D: an architecture for managing top-down and bottom-up annotated 3D objects and spaces on the web. In Web3D ’11 Proceedings of
the 16th International Conference on 3D Web Technology (2011).
 [41] HUNTER J., GERBER A.: Harvesting community annotations on 3D models of museum artefacts to enhance knowledge, discovery and re-use. Journal of Cultural Heritage
11, 1 (2010), 81–90.
 [42] GAWRONSKI A., DUMONTIER M.: MoSuMo: a semantic web service to generate electrostatic potentials across solvent excluded protein surfaces and binding pockets.
Computers & Graphics 35, 4 (Aug. 2011), 823–830.
 [43] TRZUPEK M., OGIELA M. R., TADEUSIEWICZ R.: Intelligent image content semantic description for cardiac 3D visualisations. Engineering Applications of Artificial
Intelligence In Press, Corrected Proof (2011).
 [44] HUNTER J., YU C.-H., NAKATSU R., TOSA N., NAGHDY F., WONG K., CODOGNET P.: Supporting multiple perspectives on 3D museum artefacts through interoperable
annotations. Vol. 333 of IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology. Springer Boston, 2010, pp. 149–159.
 [45] HUNTER J., COLE T., SANDERSON R., VAN DE SOMPEL H.: The open annotation collaboration: A data model to support sharing and interoperability of scholarly
annotations. (2010)
 [46] BILASCO I. M., GENSEL J., VILLANOVA-OLIVER M., MARTIN H.: An MPEG-7 framework enhancing the reuse of 3D models. In Proceedings of the eleventh international
conference on 3D web technology (Columbia, Maryland, 2006), ACM, pp. 65–74.
 [47] PITTARELLO F., FAVERI A. D.: Semantic description of 3D environments: a proposal based on web standards. In Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on
3D web technology (Columbia, Maryland, 2006), ACM, pp. 85–95.
© Fraunhofer IGD

60. Thank You!
Sebastian Pena Serna
Fraunhofer-Institut für Graphische Datenverarbeitung
IGD
Fraunhoferstraße 5
64283 Darmstadt
Tel +49 6151 155 – 468
sebastian.pena.serna@igd.fraunhofer.de
www.igd.fraunhofer.de
60
© Fraunhofer IGD

61. IVB: Integrated Viewer /Browser
Access and enrichment of 3D collections
 Searching and browsing
 Searching: flexible formulation of queries
 Browsing: exploration of multiple results and query refinement
 Viewing and Annotating
 Viewing: inspection and analysis of multimedia objects
 Annotating: building and enrichment of semantic relationships
61
© Fraunhofer IGD

62. IVB: Searching and Browsing
Interface
62
© Fraunhofer IGD

63. IVB: Viewing and Annotating Interface
63
© Fraunhofer IGD