Subject: [CODE4LIB] multimedia carrier vocabulary?

From: Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:23:40 -0500

Anyone know of any good existing controlled vocabulary for 'format' or 
'carrier' for multimedia materials?  I'm thinking of things like "CD", 
"DVD", "digital", etc.

The closest I can get is from RDA at 
http://metadataregistry.org/concept/list/vocabulary_id/46.html (thanks 
Karen and Diane), but it seems _really_ insufficient. As far as I can 
tell "audio disc" is used for both a CD and a vinyl disc, and there's 
nothing available there for "DVD" at all.   Or for "digital". Although 
I'm not sure what I mean by "digital", I guess CD and DVD are both 
digital, but I was thinking of something to identify a digital file on a 
computer network free of particular carrier. I guess that wouldn't be in 
a carrier vocabulary at all, after all, that would be sort of a null 
carrier. Phew, this stuff does get complicated quick. Which I guess is 
why nobody's worked out a good one yet.

Too bad RDA's is so _far_ from good though. Any others anyone knows about?

Jonathan

-- 
Jonathan Rochkind
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886 
rochkind (at) jhu.edu

---

From: "Custer, Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:56:39 -0500

Perhaps I'm not sure what you're looking for, but the Getty has the Art
& Architecture Thesaurus:

http://www.getty.edu/vow/AATHierarchy?find=dvd&logic=AND&note=&page=1&su
bjectid=300220523 (got your cd, dvd, but not blu-ray... yet)

But when you're talking "digital" (sans container), I guess you're just
talking format, like you said.  For that, there's the PRONOM registry:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pronom/

Either of those helpful?

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 12:24 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [CODE4LIB] multimedia carrier vocabulary?

Too bad RDA's is so _far_ from good though. Any others anyone knows
about?

Jonathan

---

From: Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:30:43 -0500

The Getty terms do seem to be more or less what I'm looking for, under 
"information artifacts by physical forms". I'm not sure if I can re-use 
them without a license from them though? 

And oddly it breaks things into different hiearchies than I would. To 
me, "CD" vs. "phonograph record" are peers, when the CD is being used to 
hold sound.  But AAT keeps "CD" out of the "sound recordings" 
hieararchy, and instead just puts it in "machine-readable artifacts".  I 
guess this is the danger of hieararchy, especially with such a slippery 
concept as form.

It's also a bit more in-depth then I really need. Hmm.

For digital sans container format, I think Internet Content Type (MIME 
Type) is probably sufficient.

Jonathan

---

From: "Diane I. Hillmann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:18:37 -0500

Hi, Jonathan,

Two points as you search out a solution:

1. I agree with your assessment of the current RDA carrier vocabulary.  
You might want to look at the RDA/ONIX vocabularies (still not 
registered, but there are plans to do so: 
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january07/dunsire/01dunsire.html).

2. These vocabularies are a start, not a finish: once RDA and the 
vocabularies are "published" there's an intention to begin improving 
them.  The first step was to get the out of the text, the second to 
build on the NSDL Registry's vocabulary development tools (some there, 
some not yet) to build them up in ways that will be much more useful.

Diane

Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> digital, but I was thinking of something to identify a digital file on 
> a computer network free of particular carrier. I guess that wouldn't 
> be in a carrier vocabulary at all, after all, that would be sort of a 
> null carrier. Phew, this stuff does get complicated quick. Which I 
> guess is why nobody's worked out a good one yet.
>

Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> digital, but I was thinking of something to identify a digital file on 
> a computer network free of particular carrier. I guess that wouldn't 
> be in a carrier vocabulary at all, after all, that would be sort of a 
> null carrier. Phew, this stuff does get complicated quick. Which I 
> guess is why nobody's worked out a good one yet.
>

---

From: Joe Hourcle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:24:16 -0500

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:

> "information artifacts by physical forms". I'm not sure if I can re-use them 
> without a license from them though? 
> And oddly it breaks things into different hiearchies than I would. To me, 
> "CD" vs. "phonograph record" are peers, when the CD is being used to hold 
> sound.  But AAT keeps "CD" out of the "sound recordings" hieararchy, and 
> instead just puts it in "machine-readable artifacts".  I guess this is the 
> danger of hieararchy, especially with such a slippery concept as form.

That's probably because CDs are more than just sound recordings.

For instance, there's CD-i and Kodak's Photo CD standard, CD-ROM, VCD, 
CD+, CD-Text, etc.

They all use the same media, but the data written onto them is not 
necessarily audio.  What you're calling 'CD' is probably more accurately 
'CDDA' (Compact Disk Digital Audio).

-Joe

---

From: Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:46:22 -0500

Thanks Diane. That article on RDA/ONIX doesn't seem to include actual 
terms, the actual vocabularly. I realize there are plans to 'register' 
it officially, but prior to that, can the actual term list be found 
anywhere in human-readable format? Or does it not exist yet?

Jonathan

Diane I. Hillmann wrote:
> 1. I agree with your assessment of the current RDA carrier 
> vocabulary.  You might want to look at the RDA/ONIX vocabularies 
> (still not registered, but there are plans to do so: 
>> Anyone know of any good existing controlled vocabulary for 'format' 
>> or 'carrier' for multimedia materials?  I'm thinking of things like 
>> "CD", "DVD", "digital", etc.
>>
>> http://metadataregistry.org/concept/list/vocabulary_id/46.html 
>> (thanks Karen and Diane), but it seems _really_ insufficient. As far 
>> as I can tell "audio disc" is used for both a CD and a vinyl disc, 
>> and there's nothing available there for "DVD" at all.   Or for 
>> "digital". Although I'm not sure what I mean by "digital", I guess CD 
>> and DVD are both digital, but I was thinking of something to identify 
>> a digital file on a computer network free of particular carrier. I 
>> guess that wouldn't be in a carrier vocabulary at all, after all, 
>> that would be sort of a null carrier. Phew, this stuff does get 
>> complicated quick. Which I guess is why nobody's worked out a good 
>> one yet.
>>
>> Anyone know of any good existing controlled vocabulary for 'format' 
>> or 'carrier' for multimedia materials?  I'm thinking of things like 
>> "CD", "DVD", "digital", etc.
>>
>> http://metadataregistry.org/concept/list/vocabulary_id/46.html 
>> (thanks Karen and Diane), but it seems _really_ insufficient. As far 
>> as I can tell "audio disc" is used for both a CD and a vinyl disc, 
>> and there's nothing available there for "DVD" at all.   Or for 
>> "digital". Although I'm not sure what I mean by "digital", I guess CD 
>> and DVD are both digital, but I was thinking of something to identify 
>> a digital file on a computer network free of particular carrier. I 
>> guess that wouldn't be in a carrier vocabulary at all, after all, 
>> that would be sort of a null carrier. Phew, this stuff does get 
>> complicated quick. Which I guess is why nobody's worked out a good 
>> one yet.
>>

---

From: Esha Datta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:51:54 -0500

Hi,
Have you looked at PBCore? It's a metadata standard developed by the  
Corporation for Public Broadcasting and is used for tv and other  
multi media cataloging. They should have a pretty good controlled  
vocabulary list. Try this:  formatPhysical (http://www.pbcore.org/ 
PBCore/formatPhysical.html) and formatDigital (http://www.pbcore.org/ 
PBCore/formatDigital.html)

hth,

Esha Datta
Programmer/Analyst
Digital Library Technology Services
Bobst Library
New York University
Ph:212-992-9236

On Jan 14, 2009, at 2:46 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:

> Thanks Diane. That article on RDA/ONIX doesn't seem to include  
> actual terms, the actual vocabularly. I realize there are plans to  
> 'register' it officially, but prior to that, can the actual term  
> list be found anywhere in human-readable format? Or does it not  
> exist yet?
>
> Jonathan
>
> Diane I. Hillmann wrote:
>> Hi, Jonathan,
>>
>> (still not registered, but there are plans to do so: http:// 
>> www.dlib.org/dlib/january07/dunsire/01dunsire.html).
>>
>> vocabularies are "published" there's an intention to begin  
>> improving them.  The first step was to get the out of the text,  
>> the second to build on the NSDL Registry's vocabulary development  
>> tools (some there, some not yet) to build them up in ways that  
>> will be much more useful.
>>
>> Diane
>>
>> Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>>> Anyone know of any good existing controlled vocabulary for  
>>> 'format' or 'carrier' for multimedia materials?  I'm thinking of  
>>> things like "CD", "DVD", "digital", etc.
>>>
>>> The closest I can get is from RDA at http://metadataregistry.org/ 
>>> concept/list/vocabulary_id/46.html (thanks Karen and Diane), but  
>>> it seems _really_ insufficient. As far as I can tell "audio disc"  
>>> is used for both a CD and a vinyl disc, and there's nothing  
>>> available there for "DVD" at all.   Or for "digital". Although  
>>> I'm not sure what I mean by "digital", I guess CD and DVD are  
>>> both digital, but I was thinking of something to identify a  
>>> digital file on a computer network free of particular carrier. I  
>>> complicated quick. Which I guess is why nobody's worked out a  
>>> good one yet.
>>>
>>> Anyone know of any good existing controlled vocabulary for  
>>> 'format' or 'carrier' for multimedia materials?  I'm thinking of  
>>> things like "CD", "DVD", "digital", etc.
>>>
>>> The closest I can get is from RDA at http://metadataregistry.org/ 
>>> concept/list/vocabulary_id/46.html (thanks Karen and Diane), but  
>>> it seems _really_ insufficient. As far as I can tell "audio disc"  
>>> is used for both a CD and a vinyl disc, and there's nothing  
>>> available there for "DVD" at all.   Or for "digital". Although  
>>> I'm not sure what I mean by "digital", I guess CD and DVD are  
>>> both digital, but I was thinking of something to identify a  
>>> digital file on a computer network free of particular carrier. I  
>>> complicated quick. Which I guess is why nobody's worked out a  
>>> good one yet.
>>>
> 410.516.8886 rochkind (at) jhu.edu

---

From: Diane Hillmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:49:15 -0500

Jonathan:

I asked Gordon your question, and here's his reply:

    /The RDA/ONIX framework itself (http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/5chair10.pdf) provides information about how the RDA carrier terms have been derived (see Appendix D in particular).  The RDA carrier type vocabulary (as in the metadata registry) is an example of what the RDA/ONIX framework refers to as a <base carrier category> vocabulary, which uses only three of the underlying attributes identified in the ontology (StorageMediumFormat, HousingFormat, IntermediationTool). The vocabulary does not incorporate any of the other framework ontology attributes such as EncodingFormat. As the framework says, these other attributes do not have a closed, controlled set of instances which is generally applicable across a wide range of communities. In order to gain the best interoperability potential from the framework, RDA has chosen to create separate vocabularies incorporating some or all of the non-base carrier categories, rather than, say, augmenting the base carrier !
 categories (the RDA carrier type vocabulary) - because these are guaranteed to interoperate with base categories from non-RDA communities. For example, RDA has a vocabulary for EncodingFormat (see section 3.19.3.3 in Chapter 3 of the RDA final draft (http://www.rdaonline.org/constituencyreview/Phase1Chp3_11_2_08.pdf); examples of the terms are <DVD audio>, <DVD-R>, <DVD video>, <HD-DVD>, etc.

    In RDA, a full description/label for the carrier of a specific resource is created from a combination of terms from several of these vocabularies, by following the guidance given in Chapter 3. See the examples given in Appendix M of the RDA draft (http://www.rdaonline.org/constituencyreview/Phase1AppM_11_10_08.pdf).

    Unfortunately, it looks as if the example for a DVD on page 26 might be a source of confusion. The Carrier type (videodisc) does not appear in the vocabulary of Carrier types in Chapter 3 of RDA, but this is probably an oversight because it is given as an example base category in the RDA/ONIX framework. The Extent (2 DVD-videos) presumably invokes RDA 3.4.1.5b (because videodisc is missing from the carrier type vocabulary) or 3.4.15c (<DVD-video> is the term preferred by the agency creating the example record - and not to be confused with the Encoding format <DVD video>). The Extent in this example should probably be <2 videodiscs>.

    Although some of the terms in this (flawed) example may appear to be redundant, in fact only Media type (video) and Carrier type (videodisc) have genuine redundancy for general metadata purposes (Media type is derived from Carrier type). For example, a videocassette (carrier type) can also be encoded as DVD audio (encoding format), while a videodisc can be encoded as HD-DVD, etc.

    <Stuff> is complicated in the real world. A further source of difficulty is the general conflation of carrier and content types in single vocabulary terms, which is prevalent in most of the cataloguing guidelines in use around the world by libraries. Many of these guidelines have faced severe difficulty in recent years in clarifying the difference between content and carrier, especially with developments in digital technologies. The RDA/ONIX framework was developed to assist metadata creators to make that clarification (to improve interoperability between different metadata communities) and avoid the problems in previous cataloguing rules.

    For example, Jonathan asks for controlled vocabularies for <multimedia> materials, but does he mean mixed content types (still images, audio and text on a single carrier such as a <DVD>) or mixed carrier types (DVD, CD and workbook in a <multimedia kit>), or both? Whatever, RDA provides a way of creating unambiguous metadata in the fairly ambiguous environment of human metadata creators and consumers.

    Cheers

    Gordon

    Gordon Dunsire
    Depute Director, Centre for Digital Library Research, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland/

I hope this helps.

Diane

Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>> build on the NSDL Registry's vocabulary development tools (some 
>> there, some not yet) to build them up in ways that will be much more 
>> useful.
>>
>> Diane
>>
>> Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>>> "digital". Although I'm not sure what I mean by "digital", I guess 
>>> CD and DVD are both digital, but I was thinking of something to 
>>> identify a digital file on a computer network free of particular 
>>> carrier. I guess that wouldn't be in a carrier vocabulary at all, 
>>> after all, that would be sort of a null carrier. Phew, this stuff 
>>> does get complicated quick. Which I guess is why nobody's worked out 
>>> a good one yet.
>>>
>>> "digital". Although I'm not sure what I mean by "digital", I guess 
>>> CD and DVD are both digital, but I was thinking of something to 
>>> identify a digital file on a computer network free of particular 
>>> carrier. I guess that wouldn't be in a carrier vocabulary at all, 
>>> after all, that would be sort of a null carrier. Phew, this stuff 
>>> does get complicated quick. Which I guess is why nobody's worked out 
>>> a good one yet.
>>>

---

From: Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:52:33 -0500

Phew, that's very confusing, I'm going to have to read it over a couple 
times, but I think it does help, thanks for the info Diane.

Diane Hillmann wrote:
>    /The RDA/ONIX framework itself 
> (http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/5chair10.pdf) provides 
> information about how the RDA carrier terms have been derived (see 
> Appendix D in particular).  The RDA carrier type vocabulary (as in the 
> metadata registry) is an example of what the RDA/ONIX framework refers 
> to as a <base carrier category> vocabulary, which uses only three of 
> the underlying attributes identified in the ontology 
> (StorageMediumFormat, HousingFormat, IntermediationTool). The 
> vocabulary does not incorporate any of the other framework ontology 
> attributes such as EncodingFormat. As the framework says, these other 
> attributes do not have a closed, controlled set of instances which is 
> generally applicable across a wide range of communities. In order to 
> gain the best interoperability potential from the framework, RDA has 
> chosen to create separate vocabularies incorporating some or all of 
> the non-base carrier categories, rather than, say, augmenting the base 
> carrier !
> categories (the RDA carrier type vocabulary) - because these are 
> guaranteed to interoperate with base categories from non-RDA 
> communities. For example, RDA has a vocabulary for EncodingFormat (see 
> section 3.19.3.3 in Chapter 3 of the RDA final draft 
> (http://www.rdaonline.org/constituencyreview/Phase1Chp3_11_2_08.pdf); 
> examples of the terms are <DVD audio>, <DVD-R>, <DVD video>, <HD-DVD>, 
> etc.
>
>    In RDA, a full description/label for the carrier of a specific 
> resource is created from a combination of terms from several of these 
> vocabularies, by following the guidance given in Chapter 3. See the 
> examples given in Appendix M of the RDA draft 
> (http://www.rdaonline.org/constituencyreview/Phase1AppM_11_10_08.pdf).
>
>    Unfortunately, it looks as if the example for a DVD on page 26 
> might be a source of confusion. The Carrier type (videodisc) does not 
> appear in the vocabulary of Carrier types in Chapter 3 of RDA, but 
> this is probably an oversight because it is given as an example base 
> category in the RDA/ONIX framework. The Extent (2 DVD-videos) 
> presumably invokes RDA 3.4.1.5b (because videodisc is missing from the 
> carrier type vocabulary) or 3.4.15c (<DVD-video> is the term preferred 
> by the agency creating the example record - and not to be confused 
> with the Encoding format <DVD video>). The Extent in this example 
> should probably be <2 videodiscs>.
>
>    Although some of the terms in this (flawed) example may appear to 
> be redundant, in fact only Media type (video) and Carrier type 
> (videodisc) have genuine redundancy for general metadata purposes 
> (Media type is derived from Carrier type). For example, a 
> videocassette (carrier type) can also be encoded as DVD audio 
> (encoding format), while a videodisc can be encoded as HD-DVD, etc.
>
>    <Stuff> is complicated in the real world. A further source of 
> difficulty is the general conflation of carrier and content types in 
> single vocabulary terms, which is prevalent in most of the cataloguing 
> guidelines in use around the world by libraries. Many of these 
> guidelines have faced severe difficulty in recent years in clarifying 
> the difference between content and carrier, especially with 
> developments in digital technologies. The RDA/ONIX framework was 
> developed to assist metadata creators to make that clarification (to 
> improve interoperability between different metadata communities) and 
> avoid the problems in previous cataloguing rules.
>
>    For example, Jonathan asks for controlled vocabularies for 
> <multimedia> materials, but does he mean mixed content types (still 
> images, audio and text on a single carrier such as a <DVD>) or mixed 
> carrier types (DVD, CD and workbook in a <multimedia kit>), or both? 
> Whatever, RDA provides a way of creating unambiguous metadata in the 
> fairly ambiguous environment of human metadata creators and consumers.
>
>    Cheers
>
>    Gordon
>
>    Gordon Dunsire
>> terms, the actual vocabularly. I realize there are plans to 
>> 'register' it officially, but prior to that, can the actual term list 
>> be found anywhere in human-readable format? Or does it not exist yet?
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> Diane I. Hillmann wrote:
>>> Hi, Jonathan,
>>>
>>>> (thanks Karen and Diane), but it seems _really_ insufficient. As 
>>>> far as I can tell "audio disc" is used for both a CD and a vinyl 
>>>> disc, and there's nothing available there for "DVD" at all.   Or 
>>>> for "digital". Although I'm not sure what I mean by "digital", I 
>>>> guess CD and DVD are both digital, but I was thinking of something 
>>>> to identify a digital file on a computer network free of particular 
>>>> does get complicated quick. Which I guess is why nobody's worked 
>>>> out a good one yet.
>>>>
>>>> (thanks Karen and Diane), but it seems _really_ insufficient. As 
>>>> far as I can tell "audio disc" is used for both a CD and a vinyl 
>>>> disc, and there's nothing available there for "DVD" at all.   Or 
>>>> for "digital". Although I'm not sure what I mean by "digital", I 
>>>> guess CD and DVD are both digital, but I was thinking of something 
>>>> to identify a digital file on a computer network free of particular 
>>>> does get complicated quick. Which I guess is why nobody's worked 
>>>> out a good one yet.
>>>>