- From: Frank Nack <nack@uva.nl>
- Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:27:43 +0200
- To: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
- CC: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>, Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
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