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  May 2002

METS May 2002

Subject:

Response to Jereon Bekaert

From:

Carl Fleischhauer <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 13 May 2002 13:28:23 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (106 lines)

Jeroen Bekaert sent several messages to the METS list and to me early in
May.  I regret that I have not had time to respond until today and I
regret even more that my response does not fully answer Jeroen's
curiosities.

Jeroen asked: "My second question concerns the Audio Visual Schemas
proposed for use in the Library of Congress.  These Schemas contains
information specific to multimedia files (audio, video, images,...). Does
there exist any relation between these schemas and  the MPEG-7 (Multimedia
Content Description Interface)Schemas ? What is the main
(semantic) difference between these two ? Is there anyone who
has experience in combining the METS and MPEG-7 standard ?"

Reply: I fear that our work group has not plumbed the depth of MPEG7 and
other MPEG proposals and standards, and to some degree we have been moving
in our own direction without full study of the alternatives.  In general,
we have the following impressions of the MPEG family and we will welcome
comments from those who have studied this matter more closely.

MPEG7.  We understand this to be descriptive metadata, although its
inclusion of such elements as segment characterization suggests that it
can fill some of the roles played in METS by the StructMap.  Our sense is
that although MPEG7 includes or can include the types of descriptive
metadata typically thought of as "bibliographic" in the library community,
the creators of MPEG7 were far more excited by the possibilities of
inscribing the "low level" characteristics of a work, the kinds of things
that are associated with knowing about pans, tilts, and cuts in motion
footage, with linguistic marks that might relate to voices and speech, and
graphic elements like colors and shapes.  One of their documents (if I
understood it all) included a description of how footage over time might
be monitored to determine when a banana reached a state of ripeness.

This kind of data will be very important as tools for automatically
logging footage come into play (inputting tools), and with the emergence
of automated tools that exploit low-level data to support searching
(search tools).  But as far as we can tell, these tools are not yet
mature.  Since the Library of Congress is not a computer science lab and
cannot develop tools on our own, we are strongly inclined to wait for
industry-developed tools to mature before we embrace the MPEG7 standard
for, say, our video reformatting effort.  (Where we play the role of
content-makers.)  Out library also has an acquisition side, obtaining new
content made by others, and there we await new born-digital content that
arrives with MPEG7 data.  (Haven't seen any yet.)  Meanwhile, we practice
watchful waiting, knowing that our implementation of MPEG7 capabilities
will follow the availability of tools and the implementation of MPEG7 by
others.  It is also possible that our implementation may still involve
METS: will we wish to wrap some new MPEG7-associated video content in a
METS wrapper?  Perhaps so.

We have not studied the dictionaries associated with MPEG7 to ensure that
we have grabbed relevant terms, names of content attributes that we may
have overlooked.  Since the orientation of the AV project I coordinate is
content preservation in a fairly basic sense--keeping the bitstreams
alive, worrying about transcoding--we have little immediate interest in
such things as the terminology for low-level descriptors.  We are glad
someone else is working on that.

Meanwhile, our schemas are intended to do some things that I believe are
beyond MPEG's scope: (1) to record the facts about the source item we
began with--our old 2-inch videotape--and (2) to document the processes
used to copy it into a new form.

MPEG21.  This proposed standard is actually more interesting to us than
MPEG7, since it is concerned with "packaging" content.  I have heard it
described as "like a shipping manifest, it tells you what is in the
box."  This functionality is rather like that of METS.  And packaging is
especially interesting for preservation planning since it is a central
concept in the OAIS reference model for a digital repository.

Other metadata.  Rather more relevant for us have been the efforts in two
American engineering societies with European connections: the Audio
Engineering Society (AES) and the Society of Motion Picture and Television
Engineers, both with links to the European Broadcasting Union.  Each of
these organization has been working on metadata, albeit dividing the
territory in different ways.  One AES effort is concerned (in two separate
proposed schemas) with the properties of digital audio and the facts of
reformatting processes.  The working Library of Congress extension schemas
for audio and digiprov have been very much influenced by the AES effort.

We have not managed to sort through the SMPTE metadata, partly for lack of
knowledgeable analysts.  We also have the impression that the SMPTE data
set is deeply concerned with the minutiae of the interior structure of a
bitstream, with content makers and broadcasters in mind.  It also appears
to be an everything-in-one-bucket schema, unlike the AES examples.  For
now, we don't quite know what (or how) to do something with the SMPTE
metadata.  But I have the feeling that we should learn and work more
closely with the society, perhaps to try to find a middle ground for
archivists.  For now, our video schema is the result of a hurry-up best
effort.

Meanwhile, regarding the characteristics of older, physical formats
(documenting what we came from in a reformatting program), we have found
the structure and codes in the Australian MAVIS collections management
database to be very thorough and impressive.
(http://www.wizardis.com.au/ie4/products/mavis/index.html).  These code
lists have informed our extension schemas.

I hope this helps.  I cannot tell you how tentative we feel about things,
and how much we would welcome a wise person taking a careful look at
things and guiding us to a good set of comparisons.

Best wishes --

Carl Fleischhauer
Library of Congress

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

December 2021
November 2021
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
July 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
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