LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for METS Archives


METS Archives

METS Archives


METS@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

METS Home

METS Home

METS  December 2001

METS December 2001

Subject:

Partial resp to Dave Ackerman re: byte order & calibration tones/targets

From:

Carl Fleischhauer <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 9 Dec 2001 20:41:31 -0500

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (64 lines)

This Carl's metadata musings, number 2 of 2 for December 9, 2001.  Thanks
again to Dave Ackerman for the very helpful note about the AES process.
I cannot say HOW RELIEVED I am to learn that AES is cooking up separate
"administrative" and "processing history" metadata blocks.  I was worried
that the society would head for a DIG35-like "everything but the kitchen
sink" structure, including rights and descriptive metadata.  They did a
GREAT job but it is more awkward for us plug- and-play types to use.

In general, we in the LC AV project will listen and obey the AES, just as
we plan to listen and obey the NISO image standard.  I am working up a few
notes on audio which I'll pass along shortly, to continue the process we
have shared with the MSU group, who have also provided some very helpful
instruction recently.

Meanwhile, a couple of early observations (more to come):

About byte_order, which was also touched on in my msg 1 of 2 today. Dave
Ackerman's preview of the AES standard (which we will use as techMD) does
include byte order, called "audio_data_orientation" [(big_endian |
little_endian) #REQUIRED], as an attribute of the element "data_format."
This is consistent with a recent email from Jerry that stated his sense
that byte order go to techMD rather than fileGrp.  But the NISO data set
does not include byte_order, which strikes me as odd since we at LC have
had trouble from time to time reading an "Intel TIFF" or a "Motorola TIFF"
file in one software or another, which I attribute to byte order
differences.  If it is omitted from NISO, and if we use NISO for techMD do
we then risk losing this information about images?

About targets (images) and calibration signals (audio and video):
The NISO document (but not the current versions of the LC or MSU schemas
derived from it) does include:
TargetType: "identifies targets [target images] as external or
internal" "0=external" and "1=internal"
TargetID: "target name, manufacturer, version" string with name, etc.
ImageData: "path where image of the target is located" "URN"
These are listed as required but I am uncertain what that means; many
projects will not produce a targets.  Does this mean "required if you have
a target?"

Dave's notes don't tell us about calibration tones for audio, more or less
the equivalent of a target in imaging. If calibration tone recordings
exist, will the AES track them in their "processing
history" schema?  Meanwhile, at the moment the LC audio and video database
tables have, although they seem not to have made into our schemas:
calibration_type: equivalent to NISO TargetID
calibration_location: equivalent to NISO ImageData, on the
possibly/probably false assumption that all calibration tones will be
external
calibration_note: more information
On reflection, the trio for NISO seems a little better than our
trio: (1) external/internal, (2) ID/type, and (3) location-if-external.

But for us METS folks: where is the best home for this information about
targets and calibration tones?  With other techMD, as suggested by the
NISO document?  Or in digiprov?  Since digiprov is not likely to be used
by many METS practitioners, my mood is to say techMD.  This would mean
adding a target block to the imageMD schema and calibration blocks to
audioMD and videoMD.  What are the implications for the use of the AES
administrative schema if it omits calibration?  Shall we shift targets and
calibration to our allFiles block, which may turn out to be an insertion
into our various specific techMD schemas?

Thanks for the continuing discussion!  Carl

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
July 2018
June 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
January 2016
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
January 2014
December 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
February 2013
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager