Cadmore media player playing video TheNISOVideo&AudioMetadataGuidelinesNowWhat
Video Player
Accessibility
Using forms mode, you can utilize keyboard shortcuts to make usability more efficient.
Space bar will play and pause the video. Pressing escape will close all displays and pressing it again will jump to the end of the player.
You can press A to open the Keyboard Shortcut Dialog which also provides an audio description of the player and all of its features.
Language
1x
Play Speed
Adjust Volume
Transcript
Search
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Re-center
Segments
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Name:
TheNISOVideo&AudioMetadataGuidelinesNowWhat
Description:
TheNISOVideo&AudioMetadataGuidelinesNowWhat
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/2bb07bac-d8ef-447a-8157-c9bb99a0da39/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg
Duration:
T00H34M16S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/2bb07bac-d8ef-447a-8157-c9bb99a0da39
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/2bb07bac-d8ef-447a-8157-c9bb99a0da39/TheNISOVideoAudioMetadataGuidelinesNowWhat.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=oe4u0JrP6Ik01XJPv49HMESOkwGBepqQZIuRfO%2F4Jqk%3D&st=2025-01-15T04%3A32%3A55Z&se=2025-01-15T06%3A37%3A55Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-03-06T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
Just give a moment or two for others to come over. It's like we've got 31, but I don't see. The Elaine yet. Let's give another moment.
Well, why don't I kick things off and then I assume she'll join us in a moment. So thanks, everyone, for attending this conversation about the video and audio metadata recommended practice. Really delighted to have you all here. And as you heard from our discussion just now, you know, this is really a brainstorming session. We're looking for ways to get this practice widely adopted. We are, of course, pleased to report that the recommended practice was officially published on February 13.
So so it's ready to go. It's recommended practice dash 41, 2023 at. So that's super exciting. Congratulations to all the co-chairs and all the participants, so maybe I'll just kick things off. We heard some ideas about ways in which we could move this standard forward. But I want to ask a question to you, Michel, that you said something that I thought was really interesting.
You said this is not an adoptable standard. It's a recommended practice. And I wonder if you could just talk a little bit about the difference there and maybe also help us to think about, OK, it's a recommended practice. So in what ways can we promote a recommended practice that might be a bit different than an adoptable standard? If I understood you correctly, Yeah.
And definitely Robert and bill, since you've been involved much longer than me, definitely fill in where I miss this standard, as I understand it are. Community, like ready to be taken up by a company, a, b, c, organization, ABC to be used with the exchange of information in some capacity.
They are in a way more serious and the nuances of that I'm still a little bit fuzzy on. So hopefully others in the room can fill in the blanks there a bit. But the recommended practice is at this point the first of its kind for video and audio metadata. So there's no there's no path ahead of us that has already been tried, as with the standard. And so we're basically making the path.
And as more groups, publishers, organizations, universities, libraries, et cetera come. To find the VAM and useful, then they will step onto that path with us. And at that point, we will discover that some tracks make more sense than others, and the ones that make more sense will probably then coalesce into, or they could potentially coalesce into a standard rather than just being a recommended practice.
So oh, sorry, Michelle. No, no, go ahead. I'm going to say yes. Please feel it. Yeah, well, I do have a couple of comments. I think the best way to think about this is that our recommended practice is about what to communicate, not how to communicate it. Right and the reason that we took that tack is that, you know, we could see that the likely participants in a media exchange.
Typically we'll use different metadata models. So if you're a librarian, you speak. Pretty much nobody other than librarians speak. Right If you're a broadcaster, you probably speak before. And if you're a news organization, you probably use the IPC video and audio metadata hub as your metadata model. And those are all rich, complex, widely adopted standards. Those are our standards.
Right and we thought it's crazy to think we would create yet another standard and get everybody to drop the one they're using and use ours. It's like, no, no, no, that's not what we're doing. You're going to the librarians are still going to use mark and the broadcasters are still going to use core. But if a broadcaster is sending a video to a librarian, what information do they need to provide? Right and that's why we call our properties.
Basically a Rosetta Stone. It's a way of getting between those two different languages so that, you know, you've got a meaningful interchange. So I hope that makes sense. I hope that that message. I think that's a really helpful clarification. And I appreciate also that this is in some sense blazing a new path and maybe we could turn to how that path gets blazed.
Elaine, I know that you are talking about different ways to kind of reach out and recruit new members and make sure that various folks in the industry and all these different capacities understand that this new recommended practice exists. You just spoke about it, but do you want to kind of maybe suggest a few ideas and we'll kick ball, get the ball rolling and hopefully have others weigh in as well? Sure So I think the main idea would be to recruit more folks to help, because no matter what we have to choose, we're going to need.
Yes new recruits to. Whether it is direct outreach to some of the stakeholders who might be interested in this. And I am thinking about the vendors who maintain the systems. Or perhaps some key publishers who have been bought by key publishers who have been doing a lot with video for a long time. So they have an interest in this, whether it's speaking at different events, whether it's looking at the recommended practice and looking at whether how it could actually be used in certain areas, so journals, et cetera.
So I think it's in order for us to give life to we're not calling the document. In order to give life to it, we should really try and find people who are interested. So I would really hope that folks can, I think in the chat here or perhaps in the Slack channel that ISO has put out. Tell us if they're interested in participating.
So this is definitely an invitation. We've got 36 participants now, so please do weigh in. Now that you've heard this presentation, we'd love to have your thoughts and if that were OK, I'm wondering if some of you could volunteer to say why they're here. So because understanding why you're interested in a recommended practice for video and audio is going to help us with potential avenues for promotion and building upon it.
So is there anybody who wants to end the chat or on audio? Just tell us what it is in their day job that makes them interested in video and audio metadata. Hi, I'm going to jump in. I'm Regina Reynolds, director of the US Center. And we're starting in the ice and community to look at podcasts. And I noticed that that's an audio type that that wasn't exactly mentioned, but there is definitely scholarly content in podcasts.
So we are looking at aac and how to provide the appropriate metadata. And one of the things that I have two comments that might be helpful. First of all, I haven't had time to read the practice. I fully intend to. I skimmed over it. It's important, I think, that the definitions of the properties are clarified because dates, if you have something serial like many podcasts are series, then what is the date that you're exchanging?
Is it the date that the first one started? Is the date that's ongoing? How do we define date? How do we find define location? Is it the location of the publisher of the participants? So I think definitions for interoperability are really critical because you may think that this other partner's version of date is the same of your as yours, but it's not really as far as adoption.
I've been involved for a long time with another recommended ISO practice page. It's about electronic journals and recommended practices, and what we found was for adoption, find some high profile people who can be convinced or encouraged to adopt and then have them present at a conference or be the poster child.
And that really seems to help if x, y, z is following this. Oh, well, maybe I need to. And that's also happened with adoption of bias. And decades ago, you find people that are going to display the sent and other people will say, well, what's that? Why are they doing that? So those are two thoughts for you.
Very helpful. Thank you very much. Anybody else. Well, since nobody's speaking up, I've got a couple more points to add. If I may, I would. Avoid using the word adoption. Adoption is what you do to a standard, right?
You adopt a standard, then everybody does it this way that adopts the standard. That's not what this is. This is guidance. It's not standard. So, you know, the getting to Regina's point about the dates. We say that for a particular or the recommended practices that. To exchange this kind of material like an event, video of an event, you need to provide dates, but it's really up to that particular recipient sender and the particular recipient to make sure that they're expressing.
How are they? What do they mean by date and how are they expressing that date? Right and so we deliberately did not get into that level of specificity because the ecosystem is so broad that. We didn't want to limit this to by getting to a specific. So this is general guidance.
And then one last comment and I'll try to shred up. Is that. In the text of the recommended practice. And as Michele outlined it, there's really a small number of properties that we say, well, we've got these 15 global properties that you pretty much always need to provide this information. And then if you're talking about events, you need to do these five more.
Or if you're talking about journalism, you need to do these three more or blah, blah, blah. But we've also created a really extensive hierarchical vocabulary of properties that has. I don't know, Michelle. Villain cliff. Hundreds of properties in that list. So it's intended to be a resource, but it's not intended to be prescriptive.
And it's because. You know, again, getting back to that principle that there are so many different types of senders in so many different types of recipients, and they have their own ways of expressing these properties. So we're just saying what you need to express, not how to express it. Cliff we have a bunch of the chat has kind of gone.
Yeah I was going to say we've got a number of comments in the chat. So thank you, Michelle, for highlighting those. I think some are questions about who participated and thank you, Michelle, for linking in the document itself. And you can see the list of the people that were in the working group. We also have some comments. Elizabeth Hobart mentions that she's a library cataloguer and started her career as a music cataloguer.
So catalog mini sound and video recordings and that the current institutions digitizing a number of audio and video metadata. So Elizabeth wants to be up on current metadata standards for these formats. And I think this may be a point that comes back to what you were saying. There are standards in these areas in specific domains for describing this type of content.
But this standard, as I understand it, is for thinking about how to exchange across those domains. So it informs both sides in the sense that we want to make sure that there are ways to see how these properties line up with existing standards, but also to facilitate the exchange of information across standards. If I understand correctly.
And then here's a question. Let's see. Robert mentioned conferences in promoting SDS. Has the group identified conferences where the VMD recommended practice could be promoted? I think it's a great question. This is one of the things that we want to talk about. So let me just pause there and see if folks have ideas about conferences where this recommended practice could be promoted.
I will point out that this is a long term question because, for example, cesp and AP have accepted have accepted or rejected conference proposals months ago for their upcoming conferences. So I don't know. We'll end it. Did anybody put in a proposal for cesp or anp?
I don't think we did for esp. There's Alps as well in the UK, which is a little bit of the equivalent. We could probably do Charleston. I think that's good because Charleston is a mix of librarians, vendors and publishers. Yep the book fairs don't have as many sessions per se. STM might be interested, although it's typically more copyright.
So these are my usual suspects. You know, the conferences that I would go to. But I'm sure there's plenty in this group. There's plenty more conferences that people go to that I might not think be thinking about. Well, I'm wondering if there are anything in like in the broadcasting and broadcasting adjacent communities that those would be probably very industry specific things.
And to be quite honest, I don't know what those would be. But maybe we can ask our. Folks that IPC or WGBH, the IPC spring meeting, is being planned right now, as a matter of fact. And it's going to be in tallinn, Estonia. And I'm not going to be there because my wife won't let me go. It's too close to Ukraine.
It's a. Partially hybrid. Mostly in person conference. But anyway. And basically the person who is the head of the IPC IPC video metadata was on our is in our working group. That's why we that's why we got her on the group. So that we took that into account. You me again.
Too late for this here, but same thing in the UK. It's librarians and publishers. Yep it looks like Tommy may have a question. Is that Tommy Houston being pointed to? If you do, we invite you to unmute yourself and ask a question. Oh och, I thank you. I haven't read the recommended practice yet. I'm sorry.
I'm very pleased that it's out Among other things, it addresses one of the current issues of contention on the jet's standing committee. We haven't actually had people screaming and yelling and throwing things in the conversations about what we need to make available in metadata for external objects. But we've gotten really close. It's an enormously complex, very important and to people in my world, very emotional issue.
So I'm very glad to see this. What I'm hoping and I say this hoping because I haven't read it yet, is that there's more to it than I have heard this morning. So far this morning, what I have heard is exchanging metadata is good. Audio and video objects have metadata. Metadata is important. Pay attention.
And that's the only message that I have actually received. You need to tighten your message. I'm not saying there isn't a lot more there, but that's not a message anybody is going to pay any attention to. So tighten your messaging. Tell people something they don't know. Tell something of people of some value. You need an elevator pitch that is more than metadata is good.
And that's my message to you. Workshop your elevator pitch and then do it again. And then do it again. And then do it again. Because if you want people to pay attention to you, you need a one or 2 minute. What is this that matters? That's new. That's interesting.
And I haven't heard it this morning. And I really want you to come up with one, because I think this is important. All right. Who on the panel would like to respond and sharpen our elevator pitch? That might be beyond what we can provide today. And I know that netty is already poking us about the next steps for the working group.
So so this will probably be one of those. Feel do you have anything else to add? No I think everybody should read the document and then tell us what they think. There's more to it than just the. The messages. Yes go ahead and read the documents. We're happy to have comments.
There was a whole period of public comments also. That was a great opportunity for people to chime in. And I think in this case, what we're going to do is take the document and again, go to folks who we know have asked for this over the years and work with them on how they can use it. So maybe that's not a good message yet, but we're going to be working on it. It's been out for two days.
Yeah, there's a ton of detail in the technical detail in the document. It's not generalities. We have a question from Adrian white and there's a comment in the chat, too. Great go ahead, Adrian. I'm sorry I missed your hand. No, it's OK.
Let me turn on my camera. So I'm very excited to see this. I've been trying to do this on my own kind of shoehorn metadata for video and audio for several years now. What is the workaround that you suggest until the systems get up to speed to handle the tagging that we need? Especially esko has podcasts and.
Right now we don't deposit any of the information with crossref or so. I'm just wondering. I saw that in the document. I glanced through it. They also it also mentioned video and supplemental material and that is not being tagged either. So is there any are there any suggestions until those systems do get up to speed?
What can we do? Thank you. Well, one thing that we found in the group and is why we did the study of existing standards is that we basically determine that all of the standards that we looked at across all these domains, all can express the things we're recommending that you express. So it's not that they don't have a way of expressing it. It's just that they aren't necessarily doing it.
Now, that's the issue. So even something as different in structure as a record can in fact accommodate this information. But certainly the others. Cr IPC. Nets and mods, etc., can express it. One other thing that, you know, I think it's an even it's actually now a nice sort of thing is the Jazz for re-use working group.
I'm actually on a subgroup working on accessibility right now. I don't know whether there has been a Jay Farrar working subgroup on media. Metadata for chats. But if there isn't, that would be another thing for to take on. What would be useful in this community.
I have to wonder if what Bill just started with is part of your elevator pitch. The standards that are out there support it, but don't. And maybe that's part of the story, right? Yeah, I think there is something to be said for what Adrian also mentioned with technology and systems not being necessarily ready to handle deposit of this content. So it needs to be both so that we have a preparation of.
Both the use of the metadata and then where to put it. And we have to figure out especially that latter part. Greg ravitch, I've noticed you've made a few comments along the way. I wonder if you might want to weigh in with some of your thoughts that you've been providing some really helpful suggestions in the comments.
Hi Thanks. Yeah, I was just thinking certainly Barbara Chen, who was my predecessor at the bibliography, was really interested in including scholarly video and audio in our database, a scholarly database. And so that involved having a separate document type or a citation type for that kind of content.
And she was involved at the beginning process here also with Baylor. I'm trying to think of areas in the humanities that where video and audio are used, certainly podcasts. I think we would love to index podcasts, scholarly podcasts, and maybe those are even more available and relevant than video in the humanities. So and the first thing that comes to mind for me is digital humanities, because I know that they're working with things that are active and things that involve things that aren't static anyway, producing scholarly output that isn't static the way a paper would be, or including audio and video in their publications.
I kind of want to go back on to things that were said. When is the crossref, for example? So as a video hosting company working with publishers across steam, the humanities, etc., so we don't have either a particular discipline that we cover or a particular content type. So it spans basically education, research and events. So we've been we have a vested interest in getting the systems to adapt.
So we have been poking crossref for a few years on a very regular basis. We're a crossref partner provider, service provider, I think it's called, and they might be getting ready soon. We just reached out to them and they said they might be getting ready soon to add video and podcasts. As a single vendor, I don't have that much power to tell them this is important. So this is where we need people in the community to tell them.
This is something that you need to be working on. Hence the call to if you think, if you have a need and if you need the systems to adapt, by all means come out. And I've, I've personally have connections with most of the systems, the system vendors. So we should go back to them and talk. I will. I have another example, which is the indexing services. Some societies have also knocked on our door for a few years saying, hey, when is web of science going to properly index video, et cetera so far, the only way to really index video is to pretend it's a journal article, so you have to really structure it the same way and you have to add a lot of text content, et cetera.
So it's really just. It's really not working just yet. But again, it's just it is about going back to them and telling them that, yes, this is important and there is demand for it because they're not going to take my word for it. They're going to take his word for it. And then the second thing I wanted to point out was, and this is tied One thing I've been saying for many, many years is video is not a content type, it's a format.
So a video can be a journal article or video can be data. When it's an anthropology, for example, you may have primary sources that are where the actual material that is being studied is video, et cetera so that that's why a single standard does not make sense for a video. It's like if you said, hey, let's have a standard for text that doesn't make sense, just standard for books and for proceedings and for journals, et cetera so you can't have one standard.
But what we try to do is have properties that need to be covered in all the different standards. That's why it's important for us as a next step to go to only the vendors that host the systems, but also the other standards committees and tell them, hey, by the way, do you have these properly these properties represented in your standard? If not, why don't we work together?
We've been approached by K-Mart. Somebody mentioned whether we could work with Jets. Obviously, we work with Jets and just make sure that this is covered. So again, the Rosetta Stone approach is to be able to poke on everybody's door and say, why don't you add these properties for video and then everybody can talk?
You know, one of the barriers to anything like this really is complexity, right? There is so much you know, the standards that we analyzed are olivary complex and the properties that we developed. I mentioned, we've got a we've got hundreds of properties in that vocabulary. So what the recommended practice does is basically say, look, let's start here. Let's just first make sure that you can handle these seven properties because these are just fundamental.
And don't try to boil the ocean and do every property in our vocabulary. That's not going to happen. And by the way, if you particularly are active in this domain, these are five more properties that you really need to make sure you can handle. So part of the genesis of this was to help make it an approachable task for people rather than an insurmountable task that just doesn't get done.
Yeah echoing what Bill said. I mean, it's almost it's almost as if this needs to have a different name than recommended practice. It's kind of something that connects a whole bunch of standards, that promotes interoperability, and there's no reason why, as the end points out. OK, so video is not really a content type. It is for my it is for my database and that's OK.
I can do that. But I can also adopt all of the different metadata types that I and feels that I need to when I need to adopt to connect with other aggregators and indexers and producers. I was looking at some conferences that we attended way back in the pre-pandemic era. There's something called Association for recorded sound collections.
I don't know if anybody is RC. Yeah they're affiliated with music library association, sort of loosely. Yep and another one that we were looking at was International Federation for theater research. I would imagine that they are going to be using video and audio as well in their research. After International Federation data research.
Yeah I think we're close to wrapping up, but let's see if there are any more comments. This has been a very rich discussion so far, and I think we've got some really solid ideas about both how to refine our message, but also how to communicate our messages to the audience that needs to hear it. So that's been great.
I do want maybe ask a question about crosswalks because this is something that came up in our discussion. And I think we didn't develop direct crosswalks between any of the existing standards. But maybe you could talk a little bit about why we didn't do that. For those that were on the group and also is that work that could be done building on this recommended practice?
Any question. Do you want me to. That's your question. Or michelle? There one. Bill, you have an answer. You should go because I was going to ask for a repeat. I was looking at the document, the notes document.
So OK. The reason that we didn't do crosswalks is that we determined that given participants, given types of interchange would need specific types of crosswalks. You're not going to crosswalk to everything in our properties vocabulary, to everything in 21 or in everything in court, et cetera. So whether crosswalks really become meaningful is this organization is using this standard and they need to communicate with this other organization about what.
Right and so those about what properties. Ideally, what we're providing is OK in this vocabulary. This is called x And you may call it y. And the other part, I may call it z, but you're both talking about the same thing. So now here's one, one aspect of our crosswalk, but that there would be not to quote Mao, but let 1,000 crosswalks bloom for 100,000, whatever it is.
So I think that's a nice place to end this discussion. And again, I want to thank everyone for attending our session. I'm hopeful that some of you will have recorded some of these ideas in the notes. And of course, it'll be super useful to those that are in the working group that are looking to take the next step. So thank you for that.
And of course, please, if you come out of this conversation, you've thought of new ideas that Google Doc will be available and please jot anything down. We're very open to feedback. And this is an exciting point to think about how to get this long developed recommended practice out into the community. So thanks, everyone and appreciate you attending.
Segment:0 .
Just give a moment or two for others to come over. It's like we've got 31, but I don't see. The Elaine yet. Let's give another moment.
Well, why don't I kick things off and then I assume she'll join us in a moment. So thanks, everyone, for attending this conversation about the video and audio metadata recommended practice. Really delighted to have you all here. And as you heard from our discussion just now, you know, this is really a brainstorming session. We're looking for ways to get this practice widely adopted. We are, of course, pleased to report that the recommended practice was officially published on February 13.
So so it's ready to go. It's recommended practice dash 41, 2023 at. So that's super exciting. Congratulations to all the co-chairs and all the participants, so maybe I'll just kick things off. We heard some ideas about ways in which we could move this standard forward. But I want to ask a question to you, Michel, that you said something that I thought was really interesting.
You said this is not an adoptable standard. It's a recommended practice. And I wonder if you could just talk a little bit about the difference there and maybe also help us to think about, OK, it's a recommended practice. So in what ways can we promote a recommended practice that might be a bit different than an adoptable standard? If I understood you correctly, Yeah.
And definitely Robert and bill, since you've been involved much longer than me, definitely fill in where I miss this standard, as I understand it are. Community, like ready to be taken up by a company, a, b, c, organization, ABC to be used with the exchange of information in some capacity.
They are in a way more serious and the nuances of that I'm still a little bit fuzzy on. So hopefully others in the room can fill in the blanks there a bit. But the recommended practice is at this point the first of its kind for video and audio metadata. So there's no there's no path ahead of us that has already been tried, as with the standard. And so we're basically making the path.
And as more groups, publishers, organizations, universities, libraries, et cetera come. To find the VAM and useful, then they will step onto that path with us. And at that point, we will discover that some tracks make more sense than others, and the ones that make more sense will probably then coalesce into, or they could potentially coalesce into a standard rather than just being a recommended practice.
So oh, sorry, Michelle. No, no, go ahead. I'm going to say yes. Please feel it. Yeah, well, I do have a couple of comments. I think the best way to think about this is that our recommended practice is about what to communicate, not how to communicate it. Right and the reason that we took that tack is that, you know, we could see that the likely participants in a media exchange.
Typically we'll use different metadata models. So if you're a librarian, you speak. Pretty much nobody other than librarians speak. Right If you're a broadcaster, you probably speak before. And if you're a news organization, you probably use the IPC video and audio metadata hub as your metadata model. And those are all rich, complex, widely adopted standards. Those are our standards.
Right and we thought it's crazy to think we would create yet another standard and get everybody to drop the one they're using and use ours. It's like, no, no, no, that's not what we're doing. You're going to the librarians are still going to use mark and the broadcasters are still going to use core. But if a broadcaster is sending a video to a librarian, what information do they need to provide? Right and that's why we call our properties.
Basically a Rosetta Stone. It's a way of getting between those two different languages so that, you know, you've got a meaningful interchange. So I hope that makes sense. I hope that that message. I think that's a really helpful clarification. And I appreciate also that this is in some sense blazing a new path and maybe we could turn to how that path gets blazed.
Elaine, I know that you are talking about different ways to kind of reach out and recruit new members and make sure that various folks in the industry and all these different capacities understand that this new recommended practice exists. You just spoke about it, but do you want to kind of maybe suggest a few ideas and we'll kick ball, get the ball rolling and hopefully have others weigh in as well? Sure So I think the main idea would be to recruit more folks to help, because no matter what we have to choose, we're going to need.
Yes new recruits to. Whether it is direct outreach to some of the stakeholders who might be interested in this. And I am thinking about the vendors who maintain the systems. Or perhaps some key publishers who have been bought by key publishers who have been doing a lot with video for a long time. So they have an interest in this, whether it's speaking at different events, whether it's looking at the recommended practice and looking at whether how it could actually be used in certain areas, so journals, et cetera.
So I think it's in order for us to give life to we're not calling the document. In order to give life to it, we should really try and find people who are interested. So I would really hope that folks can, I think in the chat here or perhaps in the Slack channel that ISO has put out. Tell us if they're interested in participating.
So this is definitely an invitation. We've got 36 participants now, so please do weigh in. Now that you've heard this presentation, we'd love to have your thoughts and if that were OK, I'm wondering if some of you could volunteer to say why they're here. So because understanding why you're interested in a recommended practice for video and audio is going to help us with potential avenues for promotion and building upon it.
So is there anybody who wants to end the chat or on audio? Just tell us what it is in their day job that makes them interested in video and audio metadata. Hi, I'm going to jump in. I'm Regina Reynolds, director of the US Center. And we're starting in the ice and community to look at podcasts. And I noticed that that's an audio type that that wasn't exactly mentioned, but there is definitely scholarly content in podcasts.
So we are looking at aac and how to provide the appropriate metadata. And one of the things that I have two comments that might be helpful. First of all, I haven't had time to read the practice. I fully intend to. I skimmed over it. It's important, I think, that the definitions of the properties are clarified because dates, if you have something serial like many podcasts are series, then what is the date that you're exchanging?
Is it the date that the first one started? Is the date that's ongoing? How do we define date? How do we find define location? Is it the location of the publisher of the participants? So I think definitions for interoperability are really critical because you may think that this other partner's version of date is the same of your as yours, but it's not really as far as adoption.
I've been involved for a long time with another recommended ISO practice page. It's about electronic journals and recommended practices, and what we found was for adoption, find some high profile people who can be convinced or encouraged to adopt and then have them present at a conference or be the poster child.
And that really seems to help if x, y, z is following this. Oh, well, maybe I need to. And that's also happened with adoption of bias. And decades ago, you find people that are going to display the sent and other people will say, well, what's that? Why are they doing that? So those are two thoughts for you.
Very helpful. Thank you very much. Anybody else. Well, since nobody's speaking up, I've got a couple more points to add. If I may, I would. Avoid using the word adoption. Adoption is what you do to a standard, right?
You adopt a standard, then everybody does it this way that adopts the standard. That's not what this is. This is guidance. It's not standard. So, you know, the getting to Regina's point about the dates. We say that for a particular or the recommended practices that. To exchange this kind of material like an event, video of an event, you need to provide dates, but it's really up to that particular recipient sender and the particular recipient to make sure that they're expressing.
How are they? What do they mean by date and how are they expressing that date? Right and so we deliberately did not get into that level of specificity because the ecosystem is so broad that. We didn't want to limit this to by getting to a specific. So this is general guidance.
And then one last comment and I'll try to shred up. Is that. In the text of the recommended practice. And as Michele outlined it, there's really a small number of properties that we say, well, we've got these 15 global properties that you pretty much always need to provide this information. And then if you're talking about events, you need to do these five more.
Or if you're talking about journalism, you need to do these three more or blah, blah, blah. But we've also created a really extensive hierarchical vocabulary of properties that has. I don't know, Michelle. Villain cliff. Hundreds of properties in that list. So it's intended to be a resource, but it's not intended to be prescriptive.
And it's because. You know, again, getting back to that principle that there are so many different types of senders in so many different types of recipients, and they have their own ways of expressing these properties. So we're just saying what you need to express, not how to express it. Cliff we have a bunch of the chat has kind of gone.
Yeah I was going to say we've got a number of comments in the chat. So thank you, Michelle, for highlighting those. I think some are questions about who participated and thank you, Michelle, for linking in the document itself. And you can see the list of the people that were in the working group. We also have some comments. Elizabeth Hobart mentions that she's a library cataloguer and started her career as a music cataloguer.
So catalog mini sound and video recordings and that the current institutions digitizing a number of audio and video metadata. So Elizabeth wants to be up on current metadata standards for these formats. And I think this may be a point that comes back to what you were saying. There are standards in these areas in specific domains for describing this type of content.
But this standard, as I understand it, is for thinking about how to exchange across those domains. So it informs both sides in the sense that we want to make sure that there are ways to see how these properties line up with existing standards, but also to facilitate the exchange of information across standards. If I understand correctly.
And then here's a question. Let's see. Robert mentioned conferences in promoting SDS. Has the group identified conferences where the VMD recommended practice could be promoted? I think it's a great question. This is one of the things that we want to talk about. So let me just pause there and see if folks have ideas about conferences where this recommended practice could be promoted.
I will point out that this is a long term question because, for example, cesp and AP have accepted have accepted or rejected conference proposals months ago for their upcoming conferences. So I don't know. We'll end it. Did anybody put in a proposal for cesp or anp?
I don't think we did for esp. There's Alps as well in the UK, which is a little bit of the equivalent. We could probably do Charleston. I think that's good because Charleston is a mix of librarians, vendors and publishers. Yep the book fairs don't have as many sessions per se. STM might be interested, although it's typically more copyright.
So these are my usual suspects. You know, the conferences that I would go to. But I'm sure there's plenty in this group. There's plenty more conferences that people go to that I might not think be thinking about. Well, I'm wondering if there are anything in like in the broadcasting and broadcasting adjacent communities that those would be probably very industry specific things.
And to be quite honest, I don't know what those would be. But maybe we can ask our. Folks that IPC or WGBH, the IPC spring meeting, is being planned right now, as a matter of fact. And it's going to be in tallinn, Estonia. And I'm not going to be there because my wife won't let me go. It's too close to Ukraine.
It's a. Partially hybrid. Mostly in person conference. But anyway. And basically the person who is the head of the IPC IPC video metadata was on our is in our working group. That's why we that's why we got her on the group. So that we took that into account. You me again.
Too late for this here, but same thing in the UK. It's librarians and publishers. Yep it looks like Tommy may have a question. Is that Tommy Houston being pointed to? If you do, we invite you to unmute yourself and ask a question. Oh och, I thank you. I haven't read the recommended practice yet. I'm sorry.
I'm very pleased that it's out Among other things, it addresses one of the current issues of contention on the jet's standing committee. We haven't actually had people screaming and yelling and throwing things in the conversations about what we need to make available in metadata for external objects. But we've gotten really close. It's an enormously complex, very important and to people in my world, very emotional issue.
So I'm very glad to see this. What I'm hoping and I say this hoping because I haven't read it yet, is that there's more to it than I have heard this morning. So far this morning, what I have heard is exchanging metadata is good. Audio and video objects have metadata. Metadata is important. Pay attention.
And that's the only message that I have actually received. You need to tighten your message. I'm not saying there isn't a lot more there, but that's not a message anybody is going to pay any attention to. So tighten your messaging. Tell people something they don't know. Tell something of people of some value. You need an elevator pitch that is more than metadata is good.
And that's my message to you. Workshop your elevator pitch and then do it again. And then do it again. And then do it again. Because if you want people to pay attention to you, you need a one or 2 minute. What is this that matters? That's new. That's interesting.
And I haven't heard it this morning. And I really want you to come up with one, because I think this is important. All right. Who on the panel would like to respond and sharpen our elevator pitch? That might be beyond what we can provide today. And I know that netty is already poking us about the next steps for the working group.
So so this will probably be one of those. Feel do you have anything else to add? No I think everybody should read the document and then tell us what they think. There's more to it than just the. The messages. Yes go ahead and read the documents. We're happy to have comments.
There was a whole period of public comments also. That was a great opportunity for people to chime in. And I think in this case, what we're going to do is take the document and again, go to folks who we know have asked for this over the years and work with them on how they can use it. So maybe that's not a good message yet, but we're going to be working on it. It's been out for two days.
Yeah, there's a ton of detail in the technical detail in the document. It's not generalities. We have a question from Adrian white and there's a comment in the chat, too. Great go ahead, Adrian. I'm sorry I missed your hand. No, it's OK.
Let me turn on my camera. So I'm very excited to see this. I've been trying to do this on my own kind of shoehorn metadata for video and audio for several years now. What is the workaround that you suggest until the systems get up to speed to handle the tagging that we need? Especially esko has podcasts and.
Right now we don't deposit any of the information with crossref or so. I'm just wondering. I saw that in the document. I glanced through it. They also it also mentioned video and supplemental material and that is not being tagged either. So is there any are there any suggestions until those systems do get up to speed?
What can we do? Thank you. Well, one thing that we found in the group and is why we did the study of existing standards is that we basically determine that all of the standards that we looked at across all these domains, all can express the things we're recommending that you express. So it's not that they don't have a way of expressing it. It's just that they aren't necessarily doing it.
Now, that's the issue. So even something as different in structure as a record can in fact accommodate this information. But certainly the others. Cr IPC. Nets and mods, etc., can express it. One other thing that, you know, I think it's an even it's actually now a nice sort of thing is the Jazz for re-use working group.
I'm actually on a subgroup working on accessibility right now. I don't know whether there has been a Jay Farrar working subgroup on media. Metadata for chats. But if there isn't, that would be another thing for to take on. What would be useful in this community.
I have to wonder if what Bill just started with is part of your elevator pitch. The standards that are out there support it, but don't. And maybe that's part of the story, right? Yeah, I think there is something to be said for what Adrian also mentioned with technology and systems not being necessarily ready to handle deposit of this content. So it needs to be both so that we have a preparation of.
Both the use of the metadata and then where to put it. And we have to figure out especially that latter part. Greg ravitch, I've noticed you've made a few comments along the way. I wonder if you might want to weigh in with some of your thoughts that you've been providing some really helpful suggestions in the comments.
Hi Thanks. Yeah, I was just thinking certainly Barbara Chen, who was my predecessor at the bibliography, was really interested in including scholarly video and audio in our database, a scholarly database. And so that involved having a separate document type or a citation type for that kind of content.
And she was involved at the beginning process here also with Baylor. I'm trying to think of areas in the humanities that where video and audio are used, certainly podcasts. I think we would love to index podcasts, scholarly podcasts, and maybe those are even more available and relevant than video in the humanities. So and the first thing that comes to mind for me is digital humanities, because I know that they're working with things that are active and things that involve things that aren't static anyway, producing scholarly output that isn't static the way a paper would be, or including audio and video in their publications.
I kind of want to go back on to things that were said. When is the crossref, for example? So as a video hosting company working with publishers across steam, the humanities, etc., so we don't have either a particular discipline that we cover or a particular content type. So it spans basically education, research and events. So we've been we have a vested interest in getting the systems to adapt.
So we have been poking crossref for a few years on a very regular basis. We're a crossref partner provider, service provider, I think it's called, and they might be getting ready soon. We just reached out to them and they said they might be getting ready soon to add video and podcasts. As a single vendor, I don't have that much power to tell them this is important. So this is where we need people in the community to tell them.
This is something that you need to be working on. Hence the call to if you think, if you have a need and if you need the systems to adapt, by all means come out. And I've, I've personally have connections with most of the systems, the system vendors. So we should go back to them and talk. I will. I have another example, which is the indexing services. Some societies have also knocked on our door for a few years saying, hey, when is web of science going to properly index video, et cetera so far, the only way to really index video is to pretend it's a journal article, so you have to really structure it the same way and you have to add a lot of text content, et cetera.
So it's really just. It's really not working just yet. But again, it's just it is about going back to them and telling them that, yes, this is important and there is demand for it because they're not going to take my word for it. They're going to take his word for it. And then the second thing I wanted to point out was, and this is tied One thing I've been saying for many, many years is video is not a content type, it's a format.
So a video can be a journal article or video can be data. When it's an anthropology, for example, you may have primary sources that are where the actual material that is being studied is video, et cetera so that that's why a single standard does not make sense for a video. It's like if you said, hey, let's have a standard for text that doesn't make sense, just standard for books and for proceedings and for journals, et cetera so you can't have one standard.
But what we try to do is have properties that need to be covered in all the different standards. That's why it's important for us as a next step to go to only the vendors that host the systems, but also the other standards committees and tell them, hey, by the way, do you have these properly these properties represented in your standard? If not, why don't we work together?
We've been approached by K-Mart. Somebody mentioned whether we could work with Jets. Obviously, we work with Jets and just make sure that this is covered. So again, the Rosetta Stone approach is to be able to poke on everybody's door and say, why don't you add these properties for video and then everybody can talk?
You know, one of the barriers to anything like this really is complexity, right? There is so much you know, the standards that we analyzed are olivary complex and the properties that we developed. I mentioned, we've got a we've got hundreds of properties in that vocabulary. So what the recommended practice does is basically say, look, let's start here. Let's just first make sure that you can handle these seven properties because these are just fundamental.
And don't try to boil the ocean and do every property in our vocabulary. That's not going to happen. And by the way, if you particularly are active in this domain, these are five more properties that you really need to make sure you can handle. So part of the genesis of this was to help make it an approachable task for people rather than an insurmountable task that just doesn't get done.
Yeah echoing what Bill said. I mean, it's almost it's almost as if this needs to have a different name than recommended practice. It's kind of something that connects a whole bunch of standards, that promotes interoperability, and there's no reason why, as the end points out. OK, so video is not really a content type. It is for my it is for my database and that's OK.
I can do that. But I can also adopt all of the different metadata types that I and feels that I need to when I need to adopt to connect with other aggregators and indexers and producers. I was looking at some conferences that we attended way back in the pre-pandemic era. There's something called Association for recorded sound collections.
I don't know if anybody is RC. Yeah they're affiliated with music library association, sort of loosely. Yep and another one that we were looking at was International Federation for theater research. I would imagine that they are going to be using video and audio as well in their research. After International Federation data research.
Yeah I think we're close to wrapping up, but let's see if there are any more comments. This has been a very rich discussion so far, and I think we've got some really solid ideas about both how to refine our message, but also how to communicate our messages to the audience that needs to hear it. So that's been great.
I do want maybe ask a question about crosswalks because this is something that came up in our discussion. And I think we didn't develop direct crosswalks between any of the existing standards. But maybe you could talk a little bit about why we didn't do that. For those that were on the group and also is that work that could be done building on this recommended practice?
Any question. Do you want me to. That's your question. Or michelle? There one. Bill, you have an answer. You should go because I was going to ask for a repeat. I was looking at the document, the notes document.
So OK. The reason that we didn't do crosswalks is that we determined that given participants, given types of interchange would need specific types of crosswalks. You're not going to crosswalk to everything in our properties vocabulary, to everything in 21 or in everything in court, et cetera. So whether crosswalks really become meaningful is this organization is using this standard and they need to communicate with this other organization about what.
Right and so those about what properties. Ideally, what we're providing is OK in this vocabulary. This is called x And you may call it y. And the other part, I may call it z, but you're both talking about the same thing. So now here's one, one aspect of our crosswalk, but that there would be not to quote Mao, but let 1,000 crosswalks bloom for 100,000, whatever it is.
So I think that's a nice place to end this discussion. And again, I want to thank everyone for attending our session. I'm hopeful that some of you will have recorded some of these ideas in the notes. And of course, it'll be super useful to those that are in the working group that are looking to take the next step. So thank you for that.
And of course, please, if you come out of this conversation, you've thought of new ideas that Google Doc will be available and please jot anything down. We're very open to feedback. And this is an exciting point to think about how to get this long developed recommended practice out into the community. So thanks, everyone and appreciate you attending.
Form Title Download
Transcript
Form Title Bookmark
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Share
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Accessibility and Keyboard Shortcuts
The cadmore media player is a professional video and audio player experience designed to deliver media as well as relevant transcript, segmentation, and metadata. On the screen is a traditional html video player with buttons such as play, pause, forward, captioning, language and play speed selection and more. Adjacent to the video player are generally tabs, one of which shows a scrolling transcript of the video and the other shows any segmentation of the media, sometimes referred to as chapters. At the top of the video is a menu bar containing an Explore button and Tools button. The Explore button allows you to dig deeper into the video by opening up an explore dialog which contains tabs for a visual navigation of the video using thumbnails, an about tab which contains rich metadata about the media, a segments tab which contains further information about the video, and a related tab which contains links to other media related to this media. The tools button opens a menu with options for sharing the media on social media, creating bookmarking links, creating embed codes for your website, generating citations, and more.
Keyboard Shortcuts
Keyboard shortcuts only work while you are in forms mode. By entering forms mode, you will be able to quickly access portions of the media player with single key commands.
Spacebar: Play/Pause Toggle
I: Info Menu,
O: Tools Menu
T: Transcript Tab,
S: Segments Tab
F: Forward 15,
R: Rewind 15
L: Languages,
P: Playspeed
M: Mute Toggle,
V: Volume Bar
N: Video Only Toggle,
B: Full Screen Toggle
C: Captions Toggle
Escape: Closes dialogs and menus / Exits Player
Z: Next Transcript Chapter
X: Previous Transcript Chapter
Q: Next Transcript Paragraph
W: Previous Transcript Paragraph
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Embed Size
-
You Size - Responsive
-
We Size - Responsive
-
Picture Overlay Popup
-
400 x 225
-
512 x 288
-
400 x 700
-
768 x 1024
-
1024 x 512
-
1280 x 608
Form Title Cite
No citation provided.
Info
Segments
Related
Thumbnails
Exit Clip Mode
You have requested to see a portion of the video outside of the clip.
Click OK to switch to the full video or click if you would like to stay inside the clip. You can always go back to the clip with Tools and Clip Mode