Re: draft for "Canonical Processes" Use Case and updates to the UC and Req document

Dear Felix, Veronique, Tobias, all
>
>
>     >     The problem is not so much of passing on metadata as such, it is
>     >     that the metadata are encoded in different formats that are not
>     >     dealt with in the other processes, although some properties
>     might
>     >     be interesting to propagate: some keywords or tags, creating
>     date
>     >     etc can be assigned at different moments in the life cycle, but
>     >     expressed in different metadata schemas. Which is the part where
>     >     the Ontology could have a role to play. If I understood
>     correctly,
>     >     of course :)
>
The problem is indeed twofolded, what discussion with people in the film 
and TV world showed. We had a few projects where it turned out that

a)  the amount of people working on a film project during the different 
production phases, i.e. preproduction, production, and postproduction, 
is large. Each of them uses tools they individually best can work with. 
Most of the available tools are often based on incompatible and closed 
proprietary architectures. It is not easy to establish an automatic 
information flow between different tools, or to support the information 
flow between distinct production phases. The net result is little or no 
intrinsic compatibility across systems from different providers, and 
poor support for broader reuse of media content. A simple example: Most 
camera providers do not support the requirements of editing technology.

The problem for the film production is: the interrelationships between 
different stages within the process (e.g. the influence of personal 
attributes on decisions or the comparing of different solutions) is 
complex and extremely collaborative. The nature of these decisions is 
important because as feedback is collected from many people, it is the 
progression through the various types of reviewers that affects the 
nature of the work.

Related to that, one of the big problems is that, due to development in 
rights management, every person who is involved in the production should 
be able to claim rights on the material that was created or manipulated 
by him or her. The problems how that is captured during the production 
flow is not yet addressed.

b) on the other hand there is also the problem that most production 
companies serve different genres (e.g. drama, news, documentary) and 
here the production activities are different. Commercial dramatic film 
production is typically a highly planned and linear process, while 
documentary is much more iterative with story structure often being very 
vague until well into the editing process. News production is structured 
for very rapid assembly of material from extremely diverse sources. So 
here the problem is more related to the content itself and how the 
production process is influenced by the content to be produced. The set 
of metadata for each genere will have some overlap but there are also 
difference on where and when this metadata is captured and what is 
actually means.

So, to me it seems that this use case is an important case to exemplify 
what type of mapping the ontology should be able to address - and it is 
important because it addresses the structural as well as contextual 
aspects of media production. Due to it's complexity it seems to me that 
there will be no implementation for this use case at the end but it can 
be used as a 'virtual' test case to cross-check if what we come up with 
can be potentially used in this environment too.

Hope that helped a bit.

Best

    frank

PS: Raphael's example is a good one to be used here.


-- 
Dr. Frank Nack					
Human-Computer Studies Group (HCS)
Institute for Informatics
University of Amsterdam	
Science Park 107
1098 XG Amsterdam 
The Netherlands

Tel:   +31 (0)20 525 6377
Fax:   +31 (0)20 525 7490
Mobile: +31 (0)6 1810 8902
Url: http://fnack.wordpress.com/

Received on Friday, 3 April 2009 07:28:23 UTC