•	Paul E. Burrows
•	Manager, Technology Integration and Media Design
•	pburrows@media.utah.edu
•	801-581-7908
Howdy.
•	Getting to know ASIS&T
•	Your mission & vision
–	2002 President’s Message (Oct-Nov)
•	Nurturing new perspectives, interests, and ideas.
•	We would like to share with you
the objectives and progress of the 
Public Broadcasting Metadata Dictionary Project
The Intellectual Assets
of Public Broadcasters
•	With our connections to…
–	Local communities
–	National outreach
–	Universities, colleges & schools
–	Non-profit institutions
–	Arts & cultural organizations
–	Historical & scientific groups
•	…we are sitting on treasure chests of television and radio programs, as well as rich media files…none of it pirated, of course
The Intellectual Assets
of Public Broadcasters
•	Some of it is buried treasure…
The Intellectual Assets
of Public Broadcasters
•	Much of it awaits valuation…
–	Aesthetic
–	Spin
–	Monetary
–	Service & Social
–	Educational
–	ROI
The Intellectual Assets
of Public Broadcasters
•	Much of it awaits description, metadata mark up, and entry into Digital Asset Management systems.

The Intellectual Assets
of Public Broadcasters
•	And the metadata needs to be exchanged in…
•	National Program Distribution
•	Local Broadcast Ops
•	Multiplatform Production
•	Fundraising & Sponsorship
•	Corporate Communications
•	Web & Broadband Services
The Intellectual Assets
of Public Broadcasters
•	Hopefully, few assets are locked away due to…
–	Use & copyright restrictions (Digital Rights Management)
–	Old-fashioned greed
–	Lack of generosity and altruism
–	Failure to implement Digital Asset Management systems
–	Failure to create a usable metadata dictionary
Ultimate Goals
•	Realize the maximum value of our intellectual content
•	Optimize efforts during production
–	Producers will have access to all content created by all productions at any time
–	Workflows will be changed and hopefully improved
Ultimate Goals
•	Maximize options for distribution
–	Provide on-demand access to digital video and other rich multimedia resources
–	Generate alternative and spin-off content in a variety of formats, e.g., streaming video and interactive media of broadcast series, outtakes, interviews, transcripts, animations, archival and field photographs, excerpts from print resources.
–	Offer full-length programs, single-concept segments, or raw media elements (video/audio clips, images, maps, charts, text)
Ultimate Goals
•	Maximize options for distribution
–	Distribute files…
•	In a variety of delivery platforms
•	At user-specified quality levels (often determined by bandwidth connections to the Internet)
•	In a user-desired format
•	At a user-determined time
Ultimate Goals
•	Accommodate archiving of content
–	Well organized
–	Preserved
–	Maintained
–	Current availability
–	Future availability
Specific Objectives
•	Within Public Broadcasting communities, form a WORKING GROUP to…
–	Develop and refine user requirements for a sharable metadata dictionary
–	Review existing metadata dictionaries and schemes to…
•	Determine applicability
•	Identify gaps and overlaps
•	Retain the best, purge the rest

Specific Objectives
•	Within Public Broadcasting communities, form a WORKING GROUP to…
–	Determine the scope and breadth of a usable metadata dictionary that is…
•	Extensible
•	Interoperable
•	Consensus-built
–	Draft a preliminary Application Profile of a Public Broadcasting Metadata Dictionary of descriptors and their usage
–	Present the Profile for Review and Comment
–	Revise the Metadata Dictionary

Working Group Members

•	PBS, APTVS, NETA
•	NPR, PRI
•	Public Interactive, PBS.org, NPROnline
•	National producers (WGBH, MPR, WNET, Grubin)
•	Community radio and TV licensees (KCTS, WGBH, WHRO)
•	State networks
•	University radio and TV licensees (KWSU, WPT, WPSX, KUED, WMVS)
•	Educators & their Evangelists (WPT, OnCourse, WHRO)
•	Subject Matter Experts (AMIA/Rutgers, DOD Academic CoLab, University of Washington Information School)

User Requirements

•	One team was assigned to…
•	Conduct use case interviews
•	Summarize use case scenarios
•	Issues and recommendations…
•	Accommodate metadata descriptions at the full program level as well as a segment or clip level
•	Rights management metadata is important
•	Implement a small, mandatory set of core metadata…but allow for modularity and special case extensions useful to other communities 
•	Cont’d

User Requirements

•	More Issues and recommendations…
•	Any metadata must be able to pass through existing transport and application standards already in place for public broadcasting
•	Dovetail with MPEG-7, Dublin Core, SMPTE and EBU P/Meta schemes
•	Use XML to crosswalk metadata from one application profile to another

Metadata Dictionary

•	A second team was assigned to…
•	Review existing metadata dictionaries, elements & qualifiers

Metadata Dictionary

•	A second team was assigned to…
•	…and then spawn a PBCore Metadata Dictionary

Metadata Dictionary

•	A second team was assigned to…
•	Spawn a PBCore Metadata Dictionary

Metadata Dictionary

•	A second team was assigned to…
•	Spawn a PBCore Metadata Dictionary

Draft PBCore Metadata Elements
•	Title
•	Title.Alternative
•	Title.Series
•	Title.Episode
•	Title.Program
Draft PBCore Metadata Elements
•	Creator
•	Creator.Role

•	Subject
Draft PBCore Metadata Elements
•	Description
•	Description.Abstract
•	Description.TableofContents
•	Description.ProgramRelatedText

Draft PBCore Metadata Elements
•	Publisher
•	Publisher.Role

•	Contributor
•	Contributor.Role

Draft PBCore Metadata Elements
•	Date.Created
•	Date.Issued
•	Date.AvailableStart
•	Date.AvailableEnd

Draft PBCore Metadata Elements
•	Type
•	Type.Form
•	Type.Genre

•	Format.Physical
•	Format.Digital
•	Format.Identifier

Draft PBCore Metadata Elements
•	Format.FileSize
•	Format.AudioBitDepth
•	Format.AudioChannelConfiguration
•	Format.AudioDataRate
•	Format.AudioSamplingRate

Draft PBCore Metadata Elements
•	Format.ImageAspectRatio
•	Format.ImageBitDepth
•	Format.ImageChannelConfiguration
•	Format.ImageColorCode
•	Format.ImageDataRate
•	Format.ImageFrameRate

Draft PBCore Metadata Elements
•	Format.ImageFrameSize
•	Format.TimeStart
•	Format.Duration
•	Format.Standard
•	Format.Type
•	Format.Encoding

Draft PBCore Metadata Elements
•	Identifier

•	Source

•	Language
•	Language.Usage

Draft PBCore Metadata Elements
•	Relation.Type
•	Relation.Identifier

•	Coverage.Spatial
•	Coverage.Temporal

Draft PBCore Metadata Elements
•	Rights.Usage
•	Rights.Reproduction
•	Rights.Access

•	Audience.Level
•	Audience.Rating

Draft PBCore Metadata Elements
•	Standards

•	Annotation

•	Location

Regarding an Application Profile
•	Definition <http://www.schemas-forum.org/metadata-watch/3.html>
–	Implementation projects generally find that no one metadata standard will completely meet their descriptive needs.
–	General standards such as Dublin Core must often be used alongside domain- or sector-specific standards such as MPEG-7 for multimedia and IEEE/LOM for educational resources.
–	Cont’d

Regarding an Application Profile
•	Definition <http://www.schemas-forum.org/metadata-watch/3.html>
–	New elements may be needed for local needs not covered by any existing standards.
–	Recent practice distinguishes between the definition of semantics in “namespaces” (i.e., official standards) and the reuse and interpretation of those semantics in “application profiles.”
–	Cont’d

Regarding an Application Profile
•	Definition <http://www.schemas-forum.org/metadata-watch/3.html>
–	Application profiles are schemas that combine elements from multiple standards, perhaps with application-specific constraints such as the use of specific controlled vocabularies.

Regarding an Application Profile
•	Well…that definition fits the Public Broadcasting Metadata Dictionary Project
–	Sector = Audiovisual
–	We mixed and matched metadata elements from many sources
•	Some with official namespaces
–	DCMI: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
–	DCEd: Dublin Core Educational Namespace
–	ViDe: Video Development Project
–	MPEG-7
–	SMPTE
•	Some without registration authority (TBD)
–	PBCore
Regarding an Application Profile
•	Well…that definition fits the Public Broadcasting Metadata Dictionary Project
–	Challenges
•	Who will serve as the real registration authority that takes responsibility for the declaration and maintenance of newly defined, custom elements and qualifiers?
•	Who will publish versions and updates?
•	How will we monitor adoption and compliance?
•	How will we measure success?
Regarding an Application Profile
•	Functional Requirements or Element Attributes
(modified ISO 11179 format)

Draft PBCore Application Profile
•	Will exist as the “Whole Enchilada”
–	Currently in first draft
–	Currently compiling comments from Dictionary Team
–	Will submit to entire Working Group for comment
–	Will submit to informed “others”
•	Will exist as a “Reader’s Digest” version
–	Will submit for less informed “others”
•	First, we will “Test Drive” the PBCore Metadata by marking up media assets the Working Group already has indexed.
–	Excellent Gap Analysis
Draft PBCore Application Profile
Testing and Promotion/Request for Comments
•	From Distributors/Funders

Draft PBCore Application Profile
Testing and Promotion/Request for Comments
•	From Local Public Broadcasting Stations/Departments
–	Program Scheduling & Traffic
–	Broadcast Ops (Routing, Automation)
–	Broadcast Ops (MC, DTV PSIP, datacast)
–	Local Cable or DBS VOD/EPG
–	Production (TV or radio linear content)
–	Development (Members, Sponsors)
–	Corporate Communications (A&P, Audience)
–	Web Services CMS, CRM
–	Education (traditional ITV services)

Draft PBCore Application Profile
Testing and Promotion/Request for Comments
•	From Other Public Broadcasting Initiatives
–	onCourse
–	Other educational content publishers
–	Collaborative content portals (AMIA, MIP)
–	P2P content exchange & production (RMU)
–	Community/University content partnerships (MARS)

Draft PBCore Application Profile

Draft PBCore Application Profile
•	Reality Check
–	Our primary interest is in data exchange, crosswalks, and interoperability, not necessarily to create a complete metadata model that can be exploited by digital asset management systems for original descriptive cataloging or mark up.
Draft PBCore Application Profile
Draft PBCore Application Profile
•	Reality Check
–	Our focus is not to create metadata elements and qualifiers that are used for original data entry and mark up.
–	Example 1:
Draft PBCore Application Profile
•	Reality Check
–	Our focus is not to create metadata elements and qualifiers that are used for original data entry and mark up.
–	Example 2:
Draft PBCore Application Profile
•	Reality Check
–	Our focus is not to create metadata elements and qualifiers that are used for original data entry and mark up.
–	Example 3:
Draft PBCore Application Profile
•	Reality Check
–	To express these mappings via web-based search engines and browsers, another Rosetta Stone is needed.
Draft PBCore Application Profile
•	Reality Check
–	To express these mappings via web-based search engines and browsers, another Rosetta Stone is needed.
Draft PBCore Application Profile
•	Reality Check
–	The PBCore is intended to be simple but not simplistic
–	The PBCore is intended as a starting point that accommodates metadata extensions for specific communities, for example…
Draft PBCore Application Profile
•	Reality Check
–	Numerous Smackdown Rounds involved the issue of:
•	One metadata record for every instantiation of an asset
 (1:1)
•	One record for many instantiations/formats of an asset 
(1:many)
–	We’re still conflicted.
Draft PBCore Application Profile
•	Reality Check
–	We are not Standards Makers
–	We are Real Life Implementors
Timeline