Search Disabled |
|
|
|
Search Options | Help | Site Map | Cultivate Web Site | ||||
|
|
|||||
| Home | Current Issue | Index of Back Issues |
| Issue 5 Home | Editorial | Features | Regular Columns | News & Events | Misc. | ||
This page is intended for printing purposes.
-------------------------------------------------------------
By Concha Fernández de la Puente - October 2001
This section aims to provide news of the European Commission's initiatives in the field of digital heritage and cultural content. Its objectives are to pinpoint the latest developments in programmes, projects and activities and to give a clear picture of progress in the area since the last issue. It certainly does not pretend to be a comprehensive account of what the EC is doing in the area but rather a short summary of some of the key items. The content is based largely on the information provided in the eCulture Newsletter, published by the European Commission, DG Information Society, Cultural Heritage Applications Unit [1].
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Over the summer, we have seen something of a slowdown in a number of the Commission's activities, however, we have greatly advanced in others.
As I have mentioned in earlier columns, the eEurope 2002 Action Plan defines one of its objectives as the stimulation of European content in global networks in order to fully exploit the opportunities created by the advent of digital technologies. This gave us a basis to organise a meeting on 4 April in Lund [2], supported by the Swedish Presidency of the European Union, that brought together experts from the Member States to identify ways in which a coordination mechanism for digitisation programmes across the Member States could be put in place to stimulate European content in global networks.
A second meeting of Member States' representatives was held under the aegis of the Belgian Presidency in Brussels on 17 July 2001. This meeting discussed a number of topics arising out of the previous meeting and continuing work. These included benchmarking as a means of providing support for improving policies and programmes, identification of standards and of guidelines in support of good practice and interoperability and national programmes and support for training and skills.
A major outcome of the Brussels meeting was the consensus that quality criteria for sites delivering cultural content is a core issue, supporting confidence and trust from the user and enabling institutions to express the work done in developing their sites and the high quality of their content in a discoverable way. The objective is not to regulate cultural content on the Web, but to provide a framework that describes quality in terms of the underlying technical characteristics provided by individual sites or subject gateways and in terms of the quality of service provided to the users. The Spanish participants in these meetings have shown great interest in this initiative and there is an strong will to continue supporting it during the Spanish Presidency (1st half 2002).
In conjunction with the eEurope activities, the Belgian Presidency and the European Commission are jointly organising a high-level ministerial Conference on eGovernment: "From Policy to Practice" [3], that will take place in Brussels from 29-30 November 2001. The conference aims to show how citizens and businesses can reap concrete benefits from on-line public services and to demonstrate where Europe currently stands in this fast moving field, as well as provide a framework to address eGovernment issues beyond the 2002 eEurope Action Plan. Finally, it will see the launch of the European eGovernment Prize contest.
Meanwhile, the eEurope+ Action Plan [4], launched last June targetting the CEE countries, is similar to the action plan covering the EU Member States, but with additions and changes of objectives, actions and timetables to reflect the economic and social situation of the candidate countries.
In 2000, we called for proposals on an action line entitled: Trials on new access models to cultural and scientific content. This focused on launching trial actions across Europe to encourage take-up of results and stimulate the implementation of innovative new products and services in the cultural heritage sector. From this call, we have selected 25 take-ups that are now starting work [5]. They cover some of the main issues related to local and regional memory organisations: virtual conservation of Irish sites of cultural and historical importance, Italian heterogeneous historical archives, a Web-based resource on European puppetry, inter-library loan of old and rare books, 3D photographic internet access to Italian research laboratories, digital recording to provide a Web resource displaying European historic gardens and parks, etc.
This call for trial actions has been considered by many as a very worthwhile initiative that has the potential to create European-wide momentum for innovation in cultural institutions. Our intention is to ensure replicability of results by concertation of trials during the life-time of these projects and to encourage case studies or examples of good practice and dissemination of results.
In this connection, we are launching TRIS, a specific support measure aiming at bringing all these projects together in the most effective way, by ensuring that the different projects meet, exchange their experiences and develop common approaches to key challenges facing their institutions.
In June we evaluated the 6th IST call for proposals, the call for the cultural heritage sector had two action lines: AL III.1.2 Heritage for All, that invited proposals to present projects that would foster sustainable online communities in creating and documenting the digital record of their societies, including safeguarding its accessibility for the future; and AL III.1.3 Next Generation digital collections, that invited proposals in the area of advanced digital libraries applications, including integration of virtual reality (VR) and visualisation technologies into DL models, with a focus on access to distributed cultural and scientific collections and on thematic and collaborative use of these collections. A continuous submission scheme area was also open. In total, 89 proposals were received for the cultural heritage sector and 15 have been retained (10 RTD and 5 support measures). These projects are in negotiation and will start at the beginning of 2001.
While we are negotiating the 6th IST call, the 7th call has been launched and will close on 17 October 2001 [6]. Although there aren't any actions open directly for the cultural heritage area, our sector might be involved in some of the open ones: AL.III.4.1 Semantic Web echnologies, aiming at enabling users to access, retrieve and filter information from the Web relevant to their interests and needs; AL.III.5.1 x-Content futures, aiming at providing opportunities for high payoff breakthrough research covering issues not covered at present by KA3; AL.III.5.2 Competence building; or AL.VIII.1.6 Enabling RTD cooperation with Newly Associated States. This last action line allows the extension of existing IST contracts with CEE partners. The objectives are to build awareness of IST and facilitate the formation of project consortia that include partners from the Newly Associated States, to better link the Newly Associated States' IST research base to that of the EU and vice versa and to support and develop more efficient means of co-operation with these countries. The types of actions addressed are research and development, demonstration and combined projects, thematic networks and accompanying measures.
The IST programme is also expanding in geographic terms. Negotiations of the agreement associating Malta were concluded last December. Since 1 March 2001, this country is eligible to participate to the programme and benefit from EU funding. Also, the EC and the Mexican National Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT) have signed an agreement for cooperative research between Mexican and European organisations under the IST programme.
IST is now preparing its work programme for 2002. One of the emerging topics for culture is creativity. A workshop on Technology Platforms for Cultural and Artistic Creative Expression [7] took place in Darmstand (Germany) on 21 May 2001. The conclusions highlighted the importance of interfaces allowing users to interact directly with content, respect for local culture, the need to involve artists in projects, the necessity of focusing on end users, and the need for a network of excellence in this area to support and catalyse exchanges between cultural/artistic and technical communities. The recommendations from the workshop will be used to help establish future priorities in this area.
The Commission is also preparing the definition and content of the Sixth Framework Programme. A Web-based consultation process has been set up for FP6 [8]. If you think that eCulture is an important topic, then this is one of the places where you can express your opinion.
In order to gain ideas for the cultural area of FP6, the 1st workshop on "Intelligent Cultural Heritage under FP6" [9], Rostock (Germany) 21 September 2001, had the objectives of facilitating information exchange and community building among IST projects under FP5 addressing intelligent cultural heritage and of encouraging discussion and gathering input from research, cultural heritage actors and national/regional policy makers with regard to Intelligent Cultural Heritage (ICH) research themes and priorities under FP6 (2002-2006).
At the recent EVA Conferences, the EC has encouraged the participants to give their opinions on future European research in the cultural heritage area. The input has been collected in The Florence Agenda [10]. This document was presented and discussed during the EVA Glasgow Conference that took place last July and we are just about to produce The Glasgow Response.
The third edition of the DLM-Forum on electronic records, with the title DLM - FORUM 2002: @ccess and preservation of electronic information: best practices and solutions, and its exhibition, will take place in Barcelona (Spain) from 7 to 8 May 2002. The DLM-Forum on Electronic Records [11] is an international and multidisciplinary forum which aim is to promote projects for the improvement of electronic records management and long-term preservation in the organizations. The DLM-Forum is also a reference point for the coordination of electronic records management's policies carrying out in the member states of the European Union, for the establishment of access and long-term storage standards, and for the implication of private sector agents in searching solutions for electronic records problems. The 2002 forum is being organised by the Secretariat for the Information Society of the Catalan government together with other Catalan institutions and departments of the Spanish central government, and with the support of the European Commission. The forum sessions will be concentrated around a number of key topics: the Memory of the Information Age: Preservation, Migration & Long-term Availability; The Use of Public Information: Security, Protection & Control; The Improvement of Knowledge Access: Education for Experts & Public Users; Exploring Records & Archives: Metadata & Standardisation; Dissemination of Content: Best Practice in Solution Scalability & Easy-to-Use-Access; and Capturing Knowledge: High Volume Information Transformation & Automatic Indexing.
Moving to the latest developments of the eContent [12] programme, as a result of the call for proposals for preparatory actions published on 20 April 2000, 28 projects have been chosen to stimulate the development and use of European Digital Content on the global networks and to promote the linguistic diversity in the Information Society. Some of the selected projects relevant to the cultural heritage area are: PSINet, that will build on the European Green Paper on Government Information in the Information Society, to provide a clear definition and typology of public sector information, to explore access issues and identify good practice, and to establish a framework for a future European Public Sector Information Network; MNM (Minority Newspapers to New Media); and MUDICU (Multilingual Digital Culture Web Project).
In the last five DIGICULT columns I have attempted to give you an overview of the EC initiatives addressing cultural heritage in a digital environment. These initiatives have been reviewed as perceived from the Cultural Heritage Applications unit of the DG Information Society where I have worked for the past five years and where I have gained considerable experience of the sector. Now it is time for me to move on and I am leaving DG Information Society to take up a post in another Commission service. I would therefore like to say goodbye to all those who have followed this section and thank you for your loyalty and support in my work. In October 2001, I will be joining EuropeAid - Cooperation Office, where I shall be working in the area of regional programmes for the Southern Mediterranean and Middle East countries [13]. I hope I will have the opportunity of working with you or addressing you again in the framework of my new responsibilities.
Goodbye!
Concha Fernández de la Puente
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Concha
Fernández de la Puente
European Commission
DG Information Society
Cultural Heritage Applications
concha.fpuente@cec.eu.int
<http://www.cordis.lu/ist/ka3/digicult/>
The information provided does not necessarily reflect the official position of the European Commission.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For citation purposes:
Fernández de la Puente, C. "DIGICULT Column", Cultivate Interactive, issue
5, 1 October 2001
URL: <http://www.cultivate-int.org/issue5/digicult/>
-------------------------------------------------------------
By Karin Hafner - October 2001
From the beginning of March until the end of June of this year, The Cultural Service Centre Austria (CSC), the National Node for Austria, organized six major information events for interested parties from museums, libraries, archives and other cultural heritage institutions. The organization of these successful events was possible due to close collaboration with the bm:bwk - Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur (the federal ministry for education, science and culture), which grants national support to the Austrian Cultivate Node. Karin Hafner of CSC Austria talks about who presented at the events and how they were received.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The first of the Austrian Cultivate events for 2001 took place on 5 March in Graz, where the office of CSC Austria is located. It was a Regional Information Day entitled EU-funding for cultural heritage projects in the 5th Framework Programme and Culture 2000/Regionaler Informationstag: EU-Foerderungen für Kulturprojekte im 5. Rahmenprogramm und Kultur 2000.
The organization of the event was carried out by CSC Austria in their role as the national commission for Cultivate-EU, together with the government of the Federal State of Styria (Landesamtsdirektion, EU-Koordinationsstelle) and APS-European Programmes for Technologies and Training.
The aim of the event was to raise awareness of EU-projects (5th Framework Programme of the EU and Culture 2000) among people from memory institutions and to point out the advantages and possibilities of the integration of modern ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) in the field of cultural heritage. The program was diversified. It started, after an opening by Gerhard Weilinger from the government of the Federal State of Styria, with lectures from representatives of the Austrian national government (Rudolf Novak from the Bundeskanzleramt and Liselotte Haschke from the bm:bwk) on issues of the Culture 2000 programme. Afterwards, examples of successful Austrian EU-project submissions in the field of digital cultural heritage were presented by Erich Prem from BIT (Bureau for International Research and Technology Cooperation), which is the Austrian centre offering services to participants in European and international programmes, actions and initiatives for co-operation in research, technological development and demonstration (RTD).
Later Walter Koch, president of CSC Austria, spoke about the accompanying measure, Cultivate, and Key Action III of Digicult (IST Programme). Barbara Haselsteiner from APS-European Programmes for Technologies and Training informed the audience about the APS´ services for proposers of EU projects. Gerda Koch from AIT-Applied Information Techniques Research Ltd finally presented the REGNET Project (Cultural Heritage in REGional NETworks), another example of a successful Austrian EU-RTD-project in the cultural heritage field.
Over 100 people attended the event and the wide spectrum of themes related to EU cultural heritage projects formed a good start for the season of events.
The next event to take place was a specialized Seminar on the Digitisation of Audio Materials (Seminar: Digitalisierung von Audiomaterialien) in Vienna, on 3 May, aimed at non-specialists. The event was organised by CSC Austria along with the Austrian Mediathek of the Technical Museum of Vienna (Technisches Museum Wien mit Oesterreichischer Mediathek) and the Phonogram Archive of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (Phonogrammarchiv der Oesterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften).
Walter Koch from CSC Austria opened the seminar with his lecture on Digitisation projects for the IST Programme of the European Union. Rainer Hubert from the Oesterreichische Mediathek contributed more general information on digitisation of audio material and Dietrich Schueller from the Phonogrammarchiv der Oesterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften spoke about long-term disposability of audio materials (from cylinders and shellac discs over vinyl discs, tapes and cassettes to CDs and CD-ROMs). His lecture was followed by contributions from Franz Lechleitner and Nadja Wallaszkovits (both from the Phonogrammarchiv) relating to the extraction of signals of mechanical (cylinders, shellac discs and LPs) and magnetic sound storage mediums (audiotapes). Dietrich Schueller (Phonogrammarchiv) and Christophe Kummer (Noa Audio Solutions) explained Matters of digital resolution and formats (e.g. the BWF-Broadcast Wav File and the currently so popular mp3, a shrunken down type of audio file). Albrecht Haefner from the German broadcast station Suedwestrundfunk Baden-Baden discussed mass storage of audio data, which is possible through the use of very small storage cartridges that can save huge masses of data. His contribution was followed by a lecture from Michael Risnyovsky and D. Schueller (both from the Phonogrammarchiv) on interim solutions for the storage of audio data, like CD-ROMs, R-Dat and DLT-tapes.
Later on in the day the importance of Metadata and ontology for the documentation of audio-visual material was discussed in a further contribution from Walter Koch (CSC Austria) along with R. Hubert (Oesterreichische Mediathek) and A. Haefner (Suedwestrundfunk Baden-Baden).
Richard Goll from the Austrian broadcast station ORF reported on the ORF audio archive and the solutions applied there. He also explained three different types of archiving: offline, near line (mass storage with cache) and online. Finally the representatives from the Oesterreichische Mediathek and Noa Audio Solutions presented the digitisation project of the Oesterreichische Mediathek and demonstrated their developments.
Thanks to the highly qualified experts which shared their wisdom at this seminar it was a really instructive event for the 35 participants.
On 17 May CSC Austria and the bm:bwk – Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur (federal ministry for education, science and culture) organized an event for the Presentation of Collections Management and Documentation Systems for Memory Institutions (Sammlungsverwaltungs- und Dokumentationsprogramme für Bibliotheken, Museen, Archive – ein Informationsnachmittag). The event took place in the audience room of the Austrian Minister for Education, Science and Culture and 60 people attended. During the day seven organizations presented their solutions for collections management and documentation in memory institutions.
ADLIB Museum was introduced by Gerda Koch from AIT – Applied Information Techniques Research Ltd.(Graz, Austria). Martin Ueberegger from the company daten unlimited (Schwaz, Austria) brought in the product mbox. Pavla Stancikova from CEIT Ltd. (Bratislava, Slovakia) spoke about Union library catalogues and terminology databases based on CDS/ISIS on Internet. Joerg Herzog from B.O.N.D. Bibliothekssysteme (Boehl-Iggelheim, Germany) presented their product BIBLIOTECA 2000. The audience was also told about the Artefact programme by Jutta Jerlich and Frank Dechmann from CMB Informationslogistik GmbH (Vienna, Austria). Hans Petschar from the Austrian National Library reported on digitisation, indexation and Web presentation of catalogue cards with KatZoom, a programme developed by the Austrian National Library. The afternoon finished with the contribution of Walter Koch (CSC Austria) on the modular documentation system MODOK.
On the following day, 18 May, the First Austrian Metadata Seminar organised by CSC Austria and the bm:bwk took place in Vienna, again in the audience room of the bm:bwk. A number of highly qualified international experts on metadata met together for this specialised seminar, at which 35 people from Austria, Slovakia and Switzerland participated. After the opening speech from the host, Peter Seitz from the bm:bwk, Walter Koch gave an introduction to ontology and metadata and explained the concept of the presentation of an object. Angela Spinazze, Programs Manager for the CIMI Consortium (Computer Interchange of Museum Information), travelled all the way from Chicago to Vienna to speak about CIMI Metadata Projects and Standard Frameworks. She reported on the CHIO and Harmony projects, the Handscape test bed (delivery of museum information to palm devices) and the testing of the SPECTRUM XML DTD. Her contribution was followed by a presentation on the Schemas-project and other European projects in the field of Metadata (e.g. Renardus), given by Michael Day [1]. Michael works for UKOLN and is involved in the Schemas-project which provides a forum for metadata schema designers involved in projects under the IST Programme and national initiatives in Europe.
Information on Metadata from the point of view of a Systems Developer was provided by Bert Degenhart Drenth, the managing director of ADLIB Information Systems. He reported on ADLIB’s involvement with metadata (CIMI Z39.50 testbed, CIMI DC testbed, DC integration in ADLIB programmes) and argued on challenges faced by systems developers, like integrated searching through different data structures.
Mirna Willer from the National and University Library Zagreb reported on Experiences with Dublin Core in Croatia, which included the results of a survey on metadata use in Croatian e-serials. The final item on the agenda was Georg Güntner’s lecture on Distributed cross-domain search based on XML metadata and the IST project COVAX (Contemporary Culture Virtual Archives in XML). Georg works for Salzburg Research and this organization acts as partner in the COVAX project. Between and after the lectures lively discussions evolved.
About a month later, on 21 June, a Digital Heritage Support Actions Concertation Event for DG Information Society, Cultural Heritage Applications unit of the European Commission was hosted by the bm:bwk and organized in collaboration with CSC Austria. 56 people from throughout Europe participated. The objectives of the event were to discuss issues relating to the current IST support actions and to look into emerging trends and future needs of these types of actions.
Peter Seitz from the bm:bwk welcomed the audience. Thomas Boesser from ACit - Advance Concepts for interactive technology GmbH, Germany, who had adopted the function of the rapporteur, gave a thematic introduction and then handed over to Bernard Smith from the European Commission, who presented an Overview of different types of non research initiatives and trends for the 6th Framework Programme of the EU.
Session 1 of the Concertation event was lead by David Fuegi from MDR Partners (United Kingdom) and was entitled “Networks of Excellence / Coordination with national programmes / International cooperation”. In the course of his session he presented the DELOS (C. Peters, Nazionale delle Ricerche, Italy), PULMAN (D. Fuegi, MDR Partners, UK), ELSNET (S. Krauwer, ELSNET/UiL OTS, The Netherlands) and DLM-Forum projects.
Flavio Tariffi from Atlantis S.p.A. (Italy) led Session 2: “Legal issues / Socioeconomic frame / Business models / Technology transfer”. Flavio presented the TRIS project. L. Goodman (The Institute for New Media Performance Research, UK) introduced RADICAL and G. Stanke (Gesellschaft zur Förderung angewandter Informatik e.V., Germany) lectured on the EVAN project. The LIBECON (D. Fuegi, MDR Partners, UK), CLEF (C. Peters, Nazionale delle Ricerche, Italy) and PROACTE (T. Morris, Ecotec Trends and Consulting Ltd., Belgium) projects were also presented during the session.
The 3rd Session was on “Technical cooperation / Infrastructures and testbeds”, the session leader was Seamus Ross (HATII, UK). S. Krause from the Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nuernberg (Germany) talked about the CHIOS project and E.-M. Melchior from ACit - Advance Concepts for interactive technology GmbH (Germany) presented TEL and VNET5.
“Information and dissemination / Mobility, skills and training” was the topic of the 4th and last session lead by Walter Koch from CSC Austria. During the session the following projects were presented: CULTIVATE (K. Hafner, CSC – Cultural Service Centre Austria), CELIP (S. Ianeva, American Center, Bulgaria), HEREIN (N. Dautier, FEMP, France) and DIFFUSE (M. Bryan, SGML Centre, UK). Thomas Bösser moderated the final debate and wrapped up the event [2].
On the following day the last of the 6 events took place, a National Information Day was given on behalf of the Austrian CULTIVATE Node. This event was also hosted by the bm:bwk and was organized by a collaboration between the bm:bwk and CSC Austria. The topic of the National Information Day for Archives, Libraries and Museums 2001 was “The 6th Framework Programme of the European Union / The national implementation of EU-projects in Austria: results and cognitions”.
After the welcome speech from Peter Seitz (bm:bwk) the first lecture was given by Bernard Smith (Head of Unit, DG Information Society, European Commission). He introduced the 6th Framework Programme and also focused on Cultural Heritage in the 6th FP and pointed out, that the effort for cultural heritage will concentrate on intelligent systems for dynamic access to and preservation of tangible and intangible cultural scientific resources. After his lecture followed a contribution from Bernd Wohlkinger (BIT Bureau for International Research and Technology Cooperation). He presented several Austrian success stories from the 5th Framework Programme which could be used as a basis for the 6th Framework Programme.
After the discussion of the fundamental issues of the 6th Framework Programme representatives from the Austrian main organizations and institutions in the area of libraries, museums and archives expressed their opinions about IST-projects. These representatives were Sigrid Reinitzer, President of VOeB-Vereinigung Oesterreichischer Bibliothekare (association of Austrian librarians); Lorenz Mikoletzky, General Director of the Austrian State Archive; Gerhard Jagschitz, President of AGAVA – Arbeitsgemeinschaft audiovisueller Archive Oesterreichs (working group of the audio-visual archives in Austria); Daniel Wisser from BVOe – Buechereiverband Oesterreichs (library association of Austria); Gerhard Richter, President of the OeGDI – Oesterreichische Gesellschaft für Dokumentation und Information (Austrian organization for documentation and information); Otmar Moritsch from the Technical Museum Vienna and Gerhard K. Wagner, secretary general of the VIW – Verband für Informationswirtschaft in Oesterreich (organization for information industry in Austria). They all shared their rich experience in the area of cultural heritage and presented their reflections and conclusions concerning IST-projects.
In the afternoon two Austrian projects relating to digitisation and networking of cultural heritage were presented. Hans Zotter from the University Library of Graz reported on the digitisation of mediaeval manuscripts at the University Library Graz in his lecture “Electronic Manuscript Library" and the projects ALO, meta-e and books2you were presented by Klaus Miesenberger from i3s3-Informatik fuer Blinde/computer science for blind men, University of Linz.
The rest of the afternoon was devoted to CULTIVATE. After a lecture by Walter Koch (CSC Austria) on “Cultivate a cultural heritage network for the whole of Europe and Russia”, several Cultivate National Nodes were introduced. Karin Hafner (CSC Austria) gave a report on the activities of the Austrian National Node; Pascale van Dinter (STIS – Scientific and Technical Information Service, Belgium) discussed National Node activities in Belgium; Torill Redse (Riksbibliotekjenesten - National Office for Research Documentation, Academic and Special Libraries, Norway) introduced herself as the Norwegian National Node and Maria Sliwinska (University Torun, Poland) reported on the build-up of the Polish National Node activities. A general discussion on CULTIVATE activities concluded the Austrian National Information Day 2001 [3].
The Austrian National Node plans to continue this series of information events in late autumn 2001 and winter 2001/2002 [4].
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Karin
Hafner
CSC Austria
karin.hafner@cscaustria.at
http://www.cscaustria.at/members/hafner/karin.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For citation purposes:
Hafner, K. "National Node Column: Austria", Cultivate Interactive, issue
5, 1 October 2001
URL: <http://www.cultivate-int.org/issue5/nodes/>
-------------------------------------------------------------
By Monica Bonett - October 2001
The 5th conference in the series of European Conferences on Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries was held in Darmstadt, Germany between 4 and 9 September 2001. Monica Bonett attended on behalf of the IMesh Toolkit Project, and reports on some of the activities.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The first day offered a number of tutorials, followed by three days of presentations and panels. Workshops were held on the last two days. A number of posters and demonstrations were also presented.
In the first invited talk, "Digital Libraries - Panacea or Recreational Chemical", Mike Keller of Stanford University reflected on the feats and failures of the Internet in transforming the Information Age. Keller charted the rise, trajectory and fall of the dot.coms, attributing their fate to 3 fallacies on which dot.coms were built: early innovators will predominate, consumers' behaviour will change rapidly, and faulty business models. Drawing parallels between the economic and the digital library worlds, Keller asked whether digital libraries are surfing on the now-defunct dot.com wave. He made a graphic comparison of the Web's present state of organisation, as he sees it. If the Web is compared to a mound of rubbish, then the tools currently in use (search engines) operate with the precision and sensitivity of a tractor sifting through the mound.
On Thursday, Eric Miller from the W3C delivered the second invited talk, "Digital Libraries and the Semantic Web". Miller first explained the goals of the Semantic Web, then gave an overview of Semantic Web activity at the W3C, followed by an outline of Semantic Web principles. An example of how the Resource Description Framework (RDF) was used to to automate the creation and maintenance of the W3C TR page was described. RDF is one of the enabling technologies proposed by the W3C for building the Semantic Web. Finally, the speaker voiced his belief that technical and social areas of overlap between digital libraries and the Semantic Web can be identfied, and memory organisations such as museums and archives, together with digital libraries can provide key foundations for supporting the Semantic Web. Slides for this presentation are available online [1].
The third invited speaker was Dr. Türkay of the Senckenberg Museum (Frankfurt). The talk provided a lucidly-explained example of the complexities of coping with changes in descriptive data over time. The application area being described was the classification of species. As new species are identified or known species are redefined, specimens may need to be reassigned to a different species. This gives rise to the requirement of keeping track of the date or period of specimen classification, since the interpretation of the statement Specimen A is of Species B is dependant on the time and/or context when the statement was made. The solutions considered in the talk were all database-driven; from my understanding, the above is exactly the kind of scenario in which RDF is expected to play a significant role, particularly for interoperability, and I would have liked to see some discussion on the suitability (or otherwise) of deploying RDF to tackle this problem.
 |
| In the ECDL 2001 presentations Hall |
One focus chosen for the conference theme was "the on-going convergence of libraries, archives, and museums into integrated digital information spaces on science, art, and history". In addition to the invited talk which dealt with museum data, other museum-related work featured in the programme included a presentation [2] on the production of museum exhibitions using different presentation styles. Using XSL-based technology, different exhibitions can be composed from the same set of digital artifacts, and presented according to user group. Different styles of exhibition can be provided for adults, children, experts, novices, high-bandwidth users and low-bandwith users.
However, an overall personal point of view is that the proposed theme was not actually tackled in the conference. The reason for this may be that, as the chairpersons themselves note in their introductory statement [3], "This process [of convergence] seems, important as it is, to be only at its beginning."
On the other hand, the applications of digital library systems and their integration into practical work, another focus proposed for the conference theme, was well represented. Anne Adams [4] presented a study undertaken to understand the social and organisational impacts of introducing digital libraries in the wards of a hospital. A prototype of a system to be developed in Singapore [5] was built to show how to organise resources relevant to a particular task. The task chosen for the prototype is that of preparing a Masters Dissertation at the school of Computer Engineering at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. The prototype focuses on a particular task to illustrate the task-oriented concept for information access. The use of collections and services to support student learning activities is being studied in the Alexandria Digital Earth Prototype (ADEPT) Project. Two presentations [6], [7] related to this project were delivered, both of which had a strong user focus. Michael Khoo [8] gave an ethnographical viewpoint, reporting on his investigations into designers' and users' understandings of digital libraries, and the consequences of differences in their viewpoints for library design and development.
In this conference, the issue of preservation, whilst being identified as an urgent and challenging problem, was dealt with from two very different angles. Michael Day [9] of UKOLN reviewed recent developments in the use of preservation metadata for digital objects, stressing the role of organisational (and other non-technical) solutions, and providing several examples of projects on preservation metadata in libraries and beyond. A mathematical framework for analyzing the problem of preservation was proposed by Cheney et al. [10].
The conference was well-attended, with over 250 registrants, including several well known figures from the field of digital library research. In addition to the formal programme, several impromptu and informal meetings took place among participants, not least those arising from spontaneous discussions and friendships, made in a bierkeller whilst sampling some of the local fare. The proceedings [3] are published by Springer in the Lecture Notes in Computer Science series (2163) and are available online [11].
The IMesh Toolkit Project <http://www.imesh.org/toolkit/> is funded by JISC/NSF under the DLI2 initiative.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Monica
Bonett
Software Developer, Research and Development
UKOLN
University of Bath
BATH
BA2 7AY
United Kingdom
M.Bonett@ukoln.ac.uk
<http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/>
Phone: +44 1225 826826
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For citation purposes:
Bonett, M. "5th European Conference, ECDL 2001: Research and Advanced Technology for Digitial Libraries", Cultivate Interactive, issue
5, 1 October 2001
URL: <http://www.cultivate-int.org/issue5/ecdl/>
-------------------------------------------------------------
By Michael Day - October 2001
Michael Day reports on the First Austrian Metadata Seminar [1], Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur, held in Vienna on 18 May 2001.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On 18th May 2001 I attended the First Austrian Metadata Seminar in Vienna. The seminar attracted about 40-50 attendees, mostly from Austria, but also including some people from Slovakia and Switzerland. The meeting was held in a richly decorated room in the Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Culture.
The workshop started with a welcome by Dr. Peter Seitz of the Ministry. Then Professor Walter Koch (CSC Austria, Graz) introduced the day with a presentation entitled "Ontology and metadata." In this he defined ontology as "an explicit, agreed specification about a shared conceptualisation" and compared this with definitions of metadata. Using some images of meaning triangles [2], the presentation looked briefly at object-oriented approaches to the semantics of meaning. Koch also introduced some DC-based mappings undertaken as part of the MODOK project. He noted that the real problem with mapping was accurately mapping the semantics of different schemes.
This was followed by a description by Angela Spinazze (CIMI) of CIMI projects and initiatives. These included CIMI collaboration with the Harmony project, the testing of the mda's SPECTRUM XML DTD, an initiative called "Handscape" that is investigating the use of wireless technologies for museum visitors and a CIMI-based test of the OAI protocol. Ms. Spinazze also gave some information on some forthcoming CIMI Institute events, including the CIMI-MCN conference to be held in Cincinnati in October, and implementers workshops on OAI and the SPECTRUM XML DTD to be held respectively in Milan (on the tutorial program at ICHIM01 in September) and Cincinnati.
My presentation on the SCHEMAS project followed this. I gave a fairly long presentation on European metadata developments and the SCHEMAS project. After a brief introduction to metadata, I looked in more detail at interoperability issues, subject gateways (with greater detail on the RDN and the Renardus project) and preservation metadata. My attempt was to give some indication of the variety of metadata initiatives that exist before introducing the SCHEMAS project itself.
After lunch, there was a presentation by Bart Degenhart Drenth (ADLiB Information Systems) on metadata from the point of a system developer. He argued that the term metadata should really only be used for data used for resource discovery (e.g. using the Dublin Core as a cross-domain element set) and not for other descriptive data, e.g. catalogue records. Metadata, therefore, should live alongside this other data and should be hidden from the user, described as deploying metadata by stealth. There was also a quick look at Z39.50 (not particularly useful for museum data), the OAI, and XML - described as the natural vehicle to support DC metadata because of its apparent longevity.
This was followed by a presentation by Mirna Willer (National and University Library, Zagreb, Croatia) on some experiences with DC in Croatia. This concentrated on interoperability issues (including mapping) and described the results of a survey on the presence of metadata in Croatian e-serials.
The final presentation was by Georg Güntner of Salzburg Research on the COVAX (Contemporary Culture Virtual Archives in XML) project [3]. This provided a general introduction to the project, with more detail on the system architecture and metadata conversions being used in the project. The project is forming a service that will broker (using Z39.50) to a network of distributed XML repositories.
Depending upon demand, there may be further workshops in this series. PowerPoint files of the presentations are available online [1].
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Michael
Day
Research Officer (Metadata)
UKOLN
University of Bath
BATH
BA2 7AY
United Kingdom
m.day@ukoln.ac.uk
<http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/>
Phone: +44 1225 826724
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For citation purposes:
Day, M. "The First Austrian Metadata Seminar", Cultivate Interactive, issue
5, 1 October 2001
URL: <http://www.cultivate-int.org/issue5/austrian/>
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
By David Johns - October 2001
In a follow up to last issue’s Streaming Video articles David Johns of Culturejam limited [1], a company who specialise in optimising video and audio for the Web, introduces the art of encoding.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The world is becoming a digital environment. The records we create are all stored as millions of "ones" and "zeros". Radio, TV, home entertainment, even the telephone - they're all digital now.
Yet there is confusion in the marketplace about what "being digital" actually means. Many seem to believe that once something is converted to digital it can be conveyed via any digital transmission or delivery medium with no further work.
Whilst true in theory, the practice is far from being so simple; the different distribution and viewing media - Internet, digital TV, DVD, mobile devices and so on - all require content to be individually optimised for their specific characteristics. So even newly-created digital material usually requires adjustment for its intended purpose.
Meanwhile, what about the vast array of legacy material which was both created and stored in older formats? Long-playing vinyl records? Analogue video and audio tapes? Quite simply, they’re destined for a slow decay into oblivion and with them their precious value.
There is a means to prevent this however: conversion into a more stable form, a form able to withstand future copying without any loss of quality. Unsurprisingly, that means digital.
News footage, corporate communication libraries, video archives, TV and radio commercials, sound effects, stock footage, showreels - all can have their value preserved for the future via digitising. To be done properly, this process require substantial investment in professional equipment and skills.
This article describes those processes and hopefully explains why good quality digitising and encoding is not just "something which anyone can do" (a popular myth, thanks to the widespread availability of low cost one-button encoding software). For further explanation of all terms used in this article see the Culturejam glossary [2].
 |
| The Culturejam Web site |
First of all, the audio-visual (A/V) content has to be brought into a computer system. This is called digitising. Then it's edited - partly according to how you want it to look, partly to optimise it for the encoding process - and finally it's encoded. After this last step, the encoded media can be stored on CD-R or DVD, or even copied onto a server which will transmit the material across the Internet.
Once the A/V source material has been received it needs to be copied onto the computer system so that it can be edited and/or encoded. In the dim, dark days of analogue tape, this required a conversion from analogue to digital and hence the process became known as "digitising". Today, even though many modern tape formats already store the audio and video digitally, the process of bringing it into a computer is still commonly referred to as digitising.
Digitising generally happens in "real time" which is to say, it takes as long to do as there is material. One hour of material takes one hour to digitise. Ten hours takes ten hours and so on.
However you also have to allow a bit of time for each item that requires digitising because the machine operator has to open the tape, put it in the machine, give the machine a name to store the file under, find and mark the start and end points, start the computer digitising and at the end, pull the tape out and re-file it in the right place. Even if they're all on the same tape, there's a certain amount of stop-starting so as to give each clip its own filename on the computer system.
Some digitising systems bring the material in 'uncompressed', that is, unaltered from its original form. For video, this requires substantial and expensive hardware due to the sheer volume of data involved (see later). Other systems apply a mild form of data compression and encoding straight away, in order to make the amount of data more manageable.
From an operational point of view, encoding at this point is effectively transparent as far as the user is concerned but it does have a bearing on the final encoding quality, so the lower the compression you can get away with when digitising, the better.
Editing for multi-media playback comprises two elements. First there's traditional editing - cutting the source material into something well-produced that tells the story you wish to tell.
For traditional broadcast, that would be the end of the story but for multi-media applications there's an extra step - modifying the material so that after it's encoded, it is presented in the most appropriate manner possible.
An example of this is with captions. A typical TV item may well have name captions strapped across the bottom of the screen to identify the speaker. Yet if that same picture is encoded for Internet transmission, the caption will probably be unreadable due to the small size of Internet video windows (see 'encoding' for details of why Internet video is generally smaller than full-screen TV quality). Hence it makes sense to place a much larger, Web-friendly caption over the video when creating a Web-edit version.
 |
| An editor at his Media100 system |
There are many similar techniques that may be required, from re-drawing on-screen graphics and diagrams to zooming in on parts of the video screen to prevent items being miniaturised to invisibility after encoding.
Encoding is a two stage process, comprising processing and then the encoding itself.
This has a bit of crossover with the second editing stage; that is, some things can either be done in the edit or as a separate processing step.
Processing includes colour, contrast and brightness modification, audio level adjustment and EQ (bass and treble, in simple terms) plus other similar tweaks. The aim is to sweeten the A/V such that once it's been through the encoding process it looks and sounds as good as it can.
Unfortunately, this step can have to be done more than once because each type of encoding may require slightly different processing in order to achieve the best result.
Here's where it gets complicated. There are numerous formats into which audio and video files can be encoded, with different ones being applicable to different applications or simply being competing formats in the same field. The table below lists the most common encoding formats and codecs
NOTE: there is a difference between a format and a codec - but sometimes they go hand in hand inherently. A format refers to a particular way of storing the encoded data; a codec ("compressor / de-compressor") refers to a computer program which implements a mathematical formula for converting the data from one type to another, often with a reduction in the amount of data needed to represent the original information.
Encoded data has to be stored in one format or other, it doesn't stand alone - but sometimes the format and codec are so inextricably linked, you can refer to them both by the same term and they would never be associated with anything else. See "Real Video" and "Windows Media" for examples, below.
| Term | Format or codec? | Typical use |
| Real Video or Real Audio | Both. The Real software includes multiple codecs, all of which are proprietary to Real hence they go hand-in-hand with the Real format. | Internet video and audio |
| Windows Media | Both, for the same reasons as Real, above. | Internet video and audio |
| QuickTime | Format - it can store data encoded with a variety of codecs. There is only one codec generally used for QuickTime video streaming though, and that's Sorenson. | From Internet video up to broadcast-quality video editing, depending on the codec chosen. |
| AVI | Format - but never used for streaming. For that, Microsoft, who invented AVI (it's part of Windows), came up with Windows Media instead. | From CD-ROM video up to broadcast-quality video editing, depending on the codec chosen. |
| M-JPEG | Codec | Broadcast-quality video editing. |
| Sorenson | Codec - universally used with the QuickTime format. | Internet video and CD-ROM video |
| Cinepak | Codec, used for AVI and QuickTime | CD-ROM video |
| Indeo | Codec, used for AVI and QuickTime | CD-ROM video |
| On2 VPx (eg VP4) | Codec | Internet video |
| ZyGo Video | Codec, used in QuickTime | Internet video |
| MPEG-1 | Both | Some parts of digital TV, also video CDs and Internet video downloads |
| MPEG-2 | Both | DVD video & digital television |
| MPEG-4 | Both | Any device, from mobile phone handsets to broadcast-quality TV. Not in widespread use yet. |
| mp3 | Both. Note that this is not the same as MPEG-3 (there is no MPEG 3). It actually stands for "MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3" | Audio only, widely used for distribution of music on the Internet. |
| Ogg Vorbis | Both. | Audio only. A new (and free!) codec trying to rival mp3 for music distribution. |
| Qdesign Music | Codec. | Audio only. Used with QuickTime (and often paired with Sorenson on the video side) |
The next technical thing to bear in mind is bitrates. The bitrate is the rate at which bits of data (the ones and zeros that represent all things digital) can be sent or received down a particular communications link, or read from a given storage device.
For example, a typical home PC user has a 56k modem. What this means is that the theoretical maximum rate at which that modem can send or receive data is 56,000 bits per second (aka 56kbps). Contrast this with even a lowly single-speed CD-ROM, which provides a data-reading rate of 1,200,000 bits per second (aka 1.2 Mbps).
(note: in truth, a 56k modem cannot achieve 56k except in a lab. In reality, 56k modems usually max out at 40-45kbps. Also, they can't transmit at 56k, they're limited to 33kbps-ish)
Why is this important? Because in order for the viewer to be able to watch the content, it has to be encoded at no greater than the fastest rate the viewer's storage device or communications link can provide. It's like trying to empty Lake Geneva; if you've only got a 1-inch hosepipe to drain it with, you're going to be waiting a long, long time. If you build 60-metre diameter drainpipes, it'll empty a lot faster.
Of course, not everyone uses 56k modems. Some people use ISDN, others have ADSL, many companies have leased lines. Some content will be stored on CD-ROM, some on DVD. In short, each possibility has to be taken into account and encoding performed accordingly. Note that although many new PCs now come equipped with high speed (x40) CD-ROM drives, older PCs won't have them so you really need to encode for the lowest common denominator.
This table describes the various data rates most commonly encountered:
| Connection | Theoretical speed | Realistic speed | Typical user |
| 28k modem | 28 kbps | 25 kbps | Home or home worker |
| 33k modem | 33 kbps | 29 kbps | Home or home worker |
| 56k modem | 56 kbps | 45 kbps | Home or home worker |
| ISDN | 64 kbps or 128 kbps | 64 kbps or 128 kbps | Enthusiastic home user; more likely home worker or small business |
| ADSL | From 512 kbps to 2 Mbps | Impossible to say! (see below) | Home user or small business |
| Leased line | Various types available from 64 kbps up to 622 Mbps | Exactly what it says on the tin. | Corporate. |
| Ethernet LAN | Various, usually 10 Mbps or 100 Mbps | 7 Mbps / 70 Mbps | Within offices |
| CD-ROM (single speed) | 1.2 Mbps | 1.2 Mbps | Anyone |
| DVD-ROM (single speed) | 11 Mbps | 11 Mbps | Anyone with a modern PC |
(ADSL note: the way ADSL works is that everyone gets UP TO the maximum rate, depending on how many others are trying to use it at the same time (at the line exchange, not in the same office). Hence you might get 512kbps out of a 512kbps line but if 10 people are all trying to watch material via the same line at the exchange, they'll each get 51.2kbps. This is referred to as 'contention')
It's also important to note that for the communications lines, the quoted "realistic" speeds are when considered "point-to-point" (ie the speed from one end of the line to the other). The other end of the line connects to the tangled mess that is the Internet so the actual data rate that manages to flow across the Internet and then down that connection may be much less than you expect. This has to be taken into account when encoding too.
For some of the formats/codecs, bitrate is not an issue as it's standardised. For example, MPEG-1 VideoCDs use 1.2Mbps. DVD MPEG-2 ranges from 4-9Mbps but this is usually dependant on the material being encoded, not the end-user.
Bitrate is critical for Internet downloads and streaming. It is common to encode the same file at three or so different bitrates so that it's suitable for a variety of audiences but it's still important to know what the likely audience is so that the best judgement as to what those bitrates should be can be made.
The key thing to remember is that the lower the bitrate, the harder it is for the codec to represent the audio or video in the given number of bits each second. If you try to encode a full-screen video at 25 frames per second (normal TV rate) such that it would play down a 28kbps line - well, it won't work. Here's why:
Full frame video is 768 pixels (dots) wide by 576 high. Each pixel takes 24 bits to describe its colour (8 for red, 8 for green, 8 for blue - all other colours are combinations of those three). There are 25 full frames each second. That's 768 x 576 x 24 x 25 = 265,420,800 bits per second.
So to send that amount of information down a line with a capacity of 28,000 bits per second (and in reality, no more than 25,000 bits per second), the video information will have to be squeezed by a factor of 265,420,800 / 25,000 = 10,617
That's a lot of compression!
To achieve this, video codecs take some shortcuts. First the video is re-sized to a more manageable level (for example, Internet transmission often uses 192 x 144 - a sixteenth of full-size). Immediately, the compression required drops (using that same example, to just 664 times). Next, the frame rate is dropped, typically by half to 12.5 frames each second. Yes, this makes the video look a bit jerky but you can't have everything. The compression required for Internet video is then just 331 times.
At this point, the codec starts to do its work by using some very complicated mathematics which tries to represent that data in an even more compact way; codecs usually do this (in simple terms) by comparing frames and only storing the differences between them rather than all the information shown. Lo and behold, you end up with sufficiently little data that you can send it down a modem and reconstruct the video at the other end!
The drawback of the maths part is that some of the detail is lost and the video can look 'blocky' and 'blotchy'. It tends to have trouble with fast-moving scenes (when there is a lot of difference in movement between the frames).
Of course, the higher the bitrate, the lower the amount of squishing that has to be done, so the better the quality. Also, each new generation of codec results in noticeable improvements in quality for a given bitrate, thanks to legions of boffins whose purpose in life is to invent better mathematics for us.
The appetite for digital information is never going to decline and neither is the number of formats in which digital content will be viewed. With the world being an analogue place, there will inherently be a continual need for digitisation to take place.
Equally, it is human nature to demand more for less, such as more data in less space. Hence parallel to the demand for digitisation will be a continual demand for encoding. As the technology progresses, so the perceived quality of the encoding, and the efficiency of any associated compression, will increase.
A knowledge of the processes and technology involved will aid anyone involved in the field of digital information to ensure they are receiving the best results from either their own efforts or those of their suppliers.
|
Note about Internet Broadcasting To view audio and video over the Internet, encoded files can either be downloaded (copied onto the hard disc) by the viewer, in which case they have to wait until the whole file has come down and then they can play it as often as they like, or they can be streamed, which means watched as they are transmitted but no local copy is stored [3]. Streaming provides practically immediate access - you see it as soon as you've clicked on it but you don't usually get to keep a copy. The quality is also restricted by your connection speed (inherently, you can't receive more data than you've got the connection for). Downloading means you have to wait but you get to keep the file and since you're not trying to watch it as it comes down, it can be encoded at a higher rate than your connection speed thus giving better quality. To confuse matters, there's also a half-way house known as "progressive downloading" whereby the file is copied to your hard disc but will start playing back as soon as enough has come down for the rest to have been downloaded by the time you get to the end. |
Culturejam specialises in making Internet video look great. We know that video and audio are the most compelling forms of communication available and that the Web is the most ubiquitous and interactive medium known to man. However, we also see that there is little synergy between them at present, largely due to a lack of expertise in Web-oriented video origination, digitisation, post-production and encoding. Having assembled a unique team bearing considerable skills in those areas, Culturejam is therefore positioned as the premier creator of Web-ready audio and video for all markets such as archiving, marketing and training.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David Johns
Culturejam limited
One Minster Gardens
West Molesey
Surrey KT8 2ER
Email: djohns@Culturejam.tv
<http://www.Culturejam.tv/>
Phone: +44 (0) 20 8979 7600
Fax: +44 (0) 20 8979 8140
David Johns has worked in radio, television and computing, in both technical and creative arenas. His IT skills were honed at IBM and Logica; his media experience stems from working for broadcasters such as Virgin Radio, the BBC and local commercial radio. A regular user of the Internet since 1987, he witnessed the birth of Web radio and TV and thereafter focused his career onto this arena.
 |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For citation purposes:
Johns, D. "An Introductory Guide to Audio and Video Encoding ", Cultivate Interactive, issue
5, 1 October 2001
URL: <http://www.cultivate-int.org/issue5/jam/>
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
By Christian Guetl - October 2001
Christian Guetl discusses a proposal for improvements to get to a more structured and personalized World Wide Web. The aim of this article is to discuss a vision, an idea of a possible way of providing existing Web content with more structure and context, which may help users to get more relevant information from the Internet as well as automated software to collect and process task specific information.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The strength of Integrated Framework for Augmentation and Enrichment of Knowledge (IFAEK) allows, unlike recent systems, the combination of additional information from more than one meta-service within the content of a particular Web document. Therefore individual meta-information from several sources related to users needs and their user profile can be provided. This will support and improve users identifying, browsing, managing and evaluating Web content, and therefore build a smarter Web. Furthermore, some advanced, improved and novel services, even commercial services, are made possible by IFAEK.
IFAEK may handle current and future client applications (e.g. PC, PDA, WAP phones, set-top boxes and hands-free browsing systems) and information services to build a more powerful net of information sources on the Web by the use of combination and integration of distributed information systems.
Since early days of the Internet, many have made comments about the problem of unstructured and passive information. To overcome this situation, consequently numberless ideas and research work has be done. For example, the Xanadu Project led by Ted Nelson, an early hypertext pioneer, has always worked hard on the ideas of a stable, structured and interactive system since the 1960s [25], also Herman Maurer and the Hyper-G team in late 1980s [23]. To give examples of some more recent ideas, Tim Bernes-Lee proposes the idea of an improved "Semantic Web" [4], XML workgroups of the W3C [28] are on the way to making the semantic Web a reality. However, at the time of writing this article, users still face a lot of problems. Some of them are itemised below:
C. Chislenko explained the current situation accurately: "The Web is probably the richest information repository in human history, but most of its information is passive and unstructured. The Web doesn't know what it carries and for what purpose, and the users cannot specify what they want from it." [6]
We believe that today techniques and pre-existing information services on the Web may already provide a first solution for a more structured and personalized Web. In the remainder of this article we will discuss the basic ideas behind this, argue why our vision could become reality, describe the framework IFAEK and show improved features and novel services.
Since late-1997, the author of this article has been considering the serious problems stated in the above Section, which resulted in a number of former research works ([9], [19] and [32]). Frequent observations of research works, standardization efforts as well as public and commercial services in a broad field of Internet information systems, related to this serious problem, show some isolated islands of improvements. This then prompts the author of this article to propose a novel Integrated Framework for Augmentation and Enrichment of Knowledge (IFAEK) to the existing document structure by collaborative and distributed work of individuals and communities.
The idea is as obvious as it is simple. On the one hand, there is an unstructured and huge information repository on the Internet. On the other hand, there are a lot of useful but isolated services there. Why not to use pre-existing information services and therefore exploit a great mass of human knowledge stored on the Internet? Why not to let pre-existing results of computer processes taken into account? Why not to use the knowledge of the huge amount of users and exploit their behavior? Why not combine all of them and therefore provide users with more relevant information? Why not to allow commercial services to be a part of it and enable new commercial services? The answer is a simple to use a smart framework (see below) combining information services and providing composite information in a quite personalized way for users. The valuable and novel point is that information from more than one meta-service dependent on users' needs can be managed and provided in combination with the corresponding content to a wide range of clients. In addition, active information contributions as well as the behaviors of users also have to be taken into account.
That simple solution, stated above, led us to emphasize some important requirements for such a smart framework:
(1) Users (other than the author) and groups of users must be able to create and manage their own sets of metadata and structures for their specific purposes.
(2) This implicitly requires that metadata must be manageable in a distributed environment (independent of the related document).
(3) Different sets of Quality metadata - dependent on the special needs - must be provided for the users.
(4) Existing geographical distributed metadata (services) must be easy detectable and selectable by the users. Both requirements are only partially fulfilled at the time of writing.
(5) A variety of pre-existing and new services have to be manageable to meet users needs. A proper framework has to provide mechanism to also integrate commercial services. That means that a kind of micro payment has been taken into account.
IFAEK may be one possible way to provide a generic solution. It enables the integration and collaboration of pre-existing and future information services (combining isolated solutions) by an open framework. Bearing in mind these ideas, the author of this paper has observed research work, standardization efforts as well as public and commercial services in a broad range of Internet information systems. These observations lead to some reasons why the IFAEK may be possible, which will be discussed in the following Section.
For example, existing standards and auspicious drafts from the XML family of technologies for structuring content on the Web [28] and SOAP, a protocol for exchange of information in a decentralized, distributed environment [29] are available. RDF, the Resource Description Framework provides Web-based metadata activities including sitemaps, content ratings, stream channel definitions, search engine data collections (Web crawling), digital library collections, and distributed authoring [30]. Another interesting item is the topic map subject [27]. On the other hand, interesting middle ware standards allow applications compiling distributed services by using ".net" [12], "Sun One" [26] and "mono::" [24].
For example XML tools [28], SOAP protocol implementation [10], JavaTM Remote Method Invocation (RMI) [20], ".net" [12], "Sun One" [26] as well as "mono::" [24] and topic map tools [27] may support the idea of IFAEK.
Within the last years, the information technology (IT) revolution has caused favorable trends in network and hardware techniques, which can perfectly support the proposed framework. Faster network links and connections as well as flat rate offers, internet-capable handheld phones and Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) facilitate nearly permanent access to Web content. The situation may positively influence the knowledge sharing process, the enrichment of information and meta-knowledge. Consequently, users are increasingly going to use meta-services to pinpoint relevant information as well as passively enrich information by their behaviors and by actively contributing their own knowledge.
A large and increasing number of users, belonging to manifold social groups, interests and being located in virtually every country of the world, produces and uses the content on the Web. [16] [33] The critical mass of users required to build a global collective knowledge base, which can be managed by self-organized meta-services seems to have been reached.
One example of a general metadata service is described in the research work of Gronbaek et al. The authors discussed an approach to utilize open hypermedia structures (e.g. links, annotations, etc.) as metadata. They proposed a general open hypermedia system, which can manage the metadata for arbitrary Web sites and allows collaborative work. The authors introduced an XML-based data format, the Open Hypermedia Interchange Format (OHIF), for the handling of such structures. [17] Further services like subject gateways, annotated links lists, etc. are discussed in [31].
Examples in the field of distributed metadata application are [22], [15] and [18]. An example of a pre-existing commercial service is Alexa [2].
On one hand, the huge amount of information available on the Internet cannot be processed and managed by human efforts. On the other hand, only automated computer processes - recent techniques are mainly statistic-based processes - do not meet the requirements for processing and managing mankind's knowledge repository on the Internet. Dramatical improvements can be gained by combining the intelligence and creativity of humans with the power of computers [1], [5], [6], [7].
It is well known in social science and business economics that people aspire to tribute within their social environment, their business and informal communities. In the Internet environment, it may be that people work on open source projects or run a homepage providing interesting information. Mark Frauenfelder discusses this effect in his article in the WIRED magazine [14]. The author stated the effect that people in Internet communities work just for "ego gratification". For example, they answer questions for other Internet users [3], or rate Internet pages for a community [11]. Frauenfelder notes the "egoboo" effect (short for ego boost effect), which is described by "the rush you get when you see your name in print [...]". Exactly these effects can be and already are exploited by services and start-ups on the Internet. Further examples are well discussed in [14].
Such a proposed framework for meta-services enables new possibilities to establish further non-commercial and commercial services. This situation may help to push the idea to become reality.
An overview of the proposed framework is shown in Figure 1. On the lower-left side, the unstructured content of the Web provided by content services (CS) is symbolized. Only browsing by following links and using local features provided by these services (e.g. site map, local search functionality, etc.) are possible at this level of the model. This reflects the current situation of the Web.
The next level describes the meta-services (MS), which may provide additional information of CS for users or applications. Examples of existing MS are robot-based search engines, search catalogs, discussion and annotation services for foreign content, rating-level servers, etc. It is quite obvious that the proposed classification is going to become blurred with daily usage, because one and the same service (or even content) can represent its own entities of information as well as meta-information related to other content.
As already discussed above, MS are mostly isolated. That means, users can hardly find proper (task specific) meta-information related to documents they are browsing. To counteract these shortcomings, the meta-meta-services (MMS), shown in the upper-left, are proposed and introduced. On the one hand, the task of this layer is to know about existing MS and their profiles (type of service, objectives, topics or geographical areas which are covered, target audience, etc.). On the other hand, MMS has to provide the proper information for the integration layer (see paragraph below). Therefore, MMS will provide substantial information and will enable co-operation and information interchange, which are not available at the time of writing. It is worth mentioning that MMS are also going to become blurred into other services. However, for an easy understanding this classification seems to be useful.
The integration layer (IL) manages the proper information requests as well as the processing, combination and visualization of the information from CS, MS and MMS. Furthermore, the IL also has to consider user individual needs in respect to their user profiles and the respective content.
Figure 1 also shows different clients on the right. A future-oriented framework has to include and manage a wide range of existing front-end applications, like common PCs, Laptops, PDAs, handheld phones, set-top boxes, Web terminals, voice browsers, etc. It appears to be obvious that the variety of front-ends stated so far requires and enables different technical solutions for the integration layer: front-end integration (e.g. browser plug-in, applet, using XUL, etc.), client-side proxy solution, server-side proxy solution and server application integration (e.g. server side includes, etc.). For meeting the nature of the Internet, consequently the IL has to be designed in a distributed manner.
As shown in Figure 1, communication between at least MS and MMS, between MMS themselves, between CS, MS, MMS and IL as well as between IL and front-end applications is required within the framework. Improvements can also be achieved if communication is possible between MS themselves as well as between MS and CS. For example, MS can inform each other that new or changed meta-information is available. The proposal for the communication layer is a multiple solution using sockets, socks and HTTP.
 |
| Figure 1: Overview of the proposed Framework |
Figure 1: Overview of the proposed Framework. The schematic graphic shows islands of unstructured content, existing and possible meta-services (e.g. annotations systems, external metadata server, etc.) as well as meta-meta-services (a kind of Yellow Pages service for meta-services, accounting services, user profiling and management services, etc.). The integration layer handles the interaction between users, as well as providing an integrated view of the Web content, information of meta-services and meta-meta-services. It enables the combination of content information and information from several meta services related to the users' needs.
The author of this article would like to emphasize that the valuable and novel point is that information from more than one MS can be managed and provided in combination with the corresponding content. The pre-selection of services related to topics and tasks by users are also taken into account. The combination of several MS as well as MMS can provide synergetic effects, which may empower users to select, navigate, manage and evaluate content on the Web.
The aim of this section is to discuss some imaginable improvements for pre-existing services and to give examples of novel services based on the possibilities provided by IFAEK.
Distributed metadata services could counteract the timid usage of metadata within document structures, which seems to be particularly useful for pre-existing content. It is conceivable that such services include human generated additional information, like a classification scheme, keywords, description, related information, author information, etc. Furthermore, automated or semi-automated systems can track content services and generate statistical information about creation time, modification time, modification history, link information to former and more recent documents, information about embedded object (e.g. graphics, sound files, etc.) and hyperlinks. The ideas discussed in this paragraph , for example, can be used to provide additional information to corresponding Web content rendered within or besides the content, enrich link information and can be combined with other meta-services. The later idea enables also a feature, which may enrich search results with additional information.
Existing services like subject catalogs, annotated link lists, quality-proved subject gateways, etc. can also be seen as special kinds of metadata. Consequently, they can be used for an enrichment of the content provided, may help users follow links of particular interest and can be used to classify the content. Useful information for similar documents can also be provided by these services. Based on the ideas of the services stated so far, a novel quality metadata service can be provided. The aim of this service is to help users get more relevant and quality information they are looking for. It is proposed to take into account descriptive metadata (e.g. information about the author, publisher, description, classification, etc) and evaluative metadata (e.g. diction of the language, target audience, etc.). The proposed service should be suited to the management of an entire Web server, areas of Web servers, single objects, and even parts of documents, whereby existing metadata of refined granularity overrides more general metadata. The provision of metadata should be a multi-step process. On the first level, authors are allowed to refer quality metadata to Web content. On the second level, librarians and subject domain experts check, edit, enrich and rate existing quality metadata records or enter new records of their own. Quality metadata can enrich corresponding content in the visualization process or allow the combination of a search request with quality metadata. Furthermore, authors related to the corresponding topics and to the target audience can be rated either by experts or by information extracted by content ratings.
Another interesting field of services can be offered by distributed annotations and discussion threads related to content, which also represent a special kind of metadata. The possibility of annotations and discussions of foreign documents provide a very democratic feature. Apart from that, such services can also provide descriptions and hyperlinks to foreign content. Therefore, for example, they may be used to build guided tours for particular communities. Of course, this basic feature is not novel, but the new aspect is that information from more than one service can be rendered related to specific tasks and proper demand. An interesting feature may also allow the definition of an information entity of foreign content, and follow changes or provide the history of the chunk of information. For example, a four year old research paper gives statistical information about the sea temperature, the meta-service provides timeliness data and the trend of the past few years. Another service can supply the users with related news information based on the topic of a document or even related to the context of an information entity. Users are able to select one or more services and define their particular needs. For example, a user wants to get annotations from the academic community related to computer science, but also likes to be informed in the field of e-commerce business by annotations from the CNN community at the same time.
A further interesting field of services are shared bookmark services. The idea of sharing bookmarks is not novel, but the combination of such services with metadata services may support users to manage their personal views of the Internet. On the other hand, users can classify their own bookmarks. These human efforts may be exploited to create a collective taxonomy. Furthermore, the shared bookmarks can be used by other services to provide similar documents.
It appears obvious that many combinations of the services discussed within this Chapter are conceivable. Numerous further services and combinations of such services are possible. It seems to be obvious that also computer processes of intelligent agents may exploit the provision of additional information by IFAEK.
On the one hand, a wide range of shortcomings can be identified in the broad field of retrieving and managing information on the Web. On the other hand, a lot of isolated research work and pre-existing non-commercial and commercial services providing additional information can be detected. This led the author of this article to propose IFAEK, a framework of meta-services and meta-meta-services, which allows the improvement of existing services and to build novel services. The key features are that users are enabled to define particular meta-services related to different subjects. Meta-meta-services manage the information interchange between meta-services and help users to define their favored meta-services. IFAEK enables the provision of additional information from more than one meta-service. Information may be provided within or besides the original documents as well as within the search process.
The aim of the framework is to reach a more structured and personalized Web. Some improved and new ideas are discussed. We have shown that the objectives of a smarter Web can be reached by means of a smart framework like IFAEK.
The most important step for future work is to reach the critical mass of research institutes, application developers and existing service providers. Together an open standard has to be defined and a proper mirco payment system for commercial services has to be established. The Web must be enriched with more structure and meta-knowledge to support users and automated programs. We have to make the Web smarter. The proposed system IFAEK could be a solution to help us reach the dream of a more structured, interactive and personalized Web, and may enable novel non-commercial and commercial services.
First of all, many thanks to Prof. Herman Maurer (IICM) and Prof. Frank Kappe (Hyperwave R&D), who have contributed many interesting aspects and a lot of useful hints. Also I would like to thank the members of the WAG-IICM for some valuable discussions. Many thanks also to Infodelio Information Systems and Guetl IT Research and Consulting for supporting this paper. Last but not least, many thanks to Mrs. Muml, Mr. Bukowski, Mr. Baer and Mr. Zweiigel for their remarkable support.
This article may be dedicated in memoriam to Mr. Franz Hesse, who had strongly influenced important parts of my life and my schooling.