Responses to draft schema
Well done for producing this!
I think it's an excellent document and I'll definitely go through it in detail. In the interests of immediate feedback before re:transmission I'll just pick up on the first thing that's occurred to me after a quick scan.
1) Enable multiple rights fields like the "media" field to enable multiple types of rights to be represented. Multiple stakeholders may be represented.
2) ID I think it would be useful to promote a common format for the ID that imparts a bit more human-readable information. I'm still thinking about this issue and not sure I can explain it properly yet, however my main idea is to ensure that links to videos can easily be "guessed" or remembered in the way that well-formed web page URLs are.
( further feedback from Gavin below)
- I just ran across this video metadata model, while looking for references to the Dublin Core media metadata stuff that I expect to see in such a doc
This looks as if it would be useful to you / Jamie Jan - covers a lot of the same ground at a finer detailed level.
Despite the fact this is 'microformats' you see the talk emphasised of the *model*, and I think it's a crucial distinction. RSS/Atom/RDF etc are useful as carriers, transmitting a common model round in a specific *format*. So you look at half a dozen different 'formats' for carrying data around, and try to extract from that the simplest common model underneath; or you just look at the data, think about how you usefully need to describe it in order to share it in a way that others get most use out of it, come up with a model and then look at how to map that to different formats.
- I don't see as much Dublin Core as I would expect to. It's a really common and well understood standard for media metadata.
I guess this depends what your use cases are. Maybe you're not that interested in being indexed by Google et al ;) but more specifically in building or connecting to a media sharing network. In which case it's definitely worth directing the "simplest useful thing" towards something really specific. Like drupal/v2v - i am surprised to see no mention of v2v here as you personally are connected with them?
- I don't see a rationale for not having the license be a required field. I would like to see it so I know what specifically I am disagreeing with ;)
a really nice mini-essay of Rufus' on the importance of being up-front explicit about licensing to encourage others' reuse.
[[ To be explicitly open [media] must have clearly attached an open knowledgelicense. Without this the knowledge produced immediately becomes *locked*: in order to do anything other than have the information sit there on the original server requires a rights-clearance effort of such daunting proportions as to be completely infeasible. ]]
- Did you ever look into the work of Susanna Koskinen - she was doing video metadata stuff a couple of years back
Now, her emphasis was much more on describing events *internal* to a bit of media - what people appear in what scenes, what topics and objects are discussed there, etc. This is going to be an easy way to get you more structure and use value than 'tags' without the same risk that people will describe very differently or ineffectively.
Okay, this is probably enough random braindumping for now. I hope this may have been any use and feel free to pass references on to where they would be useful.
dear metadata list, hello,
For those of you who don't know me, I was the one barging in quite rudely late on in the meeting to make sarcastic points about open data licensing in the context of video metadata.
I wrote a short blog entry and it has links to some of the references that I mentioned
Specifically this entry by Rufus Pollock about up-front open licensing
The Open Knowledge Definition, an attempt to provide a statement at the level of the Free Software Definition or Open Source Definition that is at a level above licenses, just describing how an open license behaves
I also ran across this assessment by Lisa Rein of video metadata syndication formats which makes a good parallel read with Jamie Jan's doc.
I floated the video data licensing question on the Open Knowledge Foundation discussion list and got a couple of references from Rufus on previous video licensing discussions had with FreeCulture, particularly the Deptford TV group ...
Forwarded message from Rufus Pollock <firstname.lastname@example.org> -----
[...] >I got a concession that they would take the matter under advisement >and recommended they seek advisement specifically from representatives >of FreeCulture such as Tom Chance. I hope this was an appropriate >thing to do.
Absolutely. I know that Adnan Hadzi who is also part of Free Culture UK is heavily into video work with http://deptford.tv/ -- it was with him that I had the original discussion about the use of CC non-commercial licenses which became:
from Bill Best
I'm Bill Best and I work for the Community Media Association
I worked on the draft SOMA metadata standard (http://soma-dev.sourceforge.net/) and The Showcase archive of community media (http://showcase.commedia.org.uk/). The Showcase is an online media archive that implements the SOMA standard.
We based the SOMA standard on the Dublin Core, obviously, but also the EBU Tech3293 core metadata set for radio archives (http://mokk.bme.hu/mediatervezo/targyak/metainfo/tech_t3293.pdf).
Unfortunately, there has been no further funding available to take development of the SOMA standard further or even to do much more work with The Showcase archive. The SOMA standard would be much improved by converting to strict RDF. I also am a firm believer in bottom up folksonomic methods of tagging content and any contemporary metadata standard must be able to accommodate this.
More recently I worked on implementing the URCountyURSay archive for Surrey County Council - http://www.urcountyursay.tv/ - and came to the realisation that a metadata standard is only a useful tool, a means to an end and that one should not get hamstrung by an unwieldy metadata framework if it doesn't work. I think this was a weakness of the SOMA framework which was our first foray into this arena. I can post details of the SOVA (Shared Online Video Archive) metadata schema which was a refinement of SOMA 1.0.
Unfortunately I could not make it down to Re:Tx and hope to be able to have some input into this particular project though time available is always a problem, as it is for most people. There is still a requirement to establish a de facto metadata standard for video and multimedia content, and with the progress of time it is perhaps now more likely that this goal will be reached.
From Minna Tarka
first a big thanks to all of you who made the meeting happen and prepared both the social and analytic ground for the great work! with petri we are writing a report for our collaborators in helsinki to be presented in a discussion of collaborative media practices with adam hyde and bifo berardi on 27/10.
we will also circulate the excellent metadata proposal in our group for comments. at m-cult we have been immersed for some time in the ...onerous, stringent... world of semantic web and listened carefully to the (partly academic) discussions of its possible merits vis a vis soft ontologies (self-organising maps) and folksonomic camps. we think that there are ways to combine the best of these approaches in creating flexible description schemas for audiovisual content, in the real world...
more about these on the metadata list