- From: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
- Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 18:18:04 +0900
- To: nack@uva.nl
- Cc: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>, Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
- Message-ID: <ba4134970904030218s6117f383o374a8d011c4adcf1@mail.gmail.com>
Very interesting, thank you Frank! Felix 2009/4/3 Frank Nack <nack@uva.nl> > 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 09:18:41 UTC