No subject

"The Advanced Authoring Format (AAF) is a professional file interchange
format designed for the post production and authoring environment. AAF
solves the problem of multi-vendor, cross-platform interoperability for
computer-based digital production. AAF does a number of things. 1) it allows
complex relationships to be described in terms of an object model, 2) it
facilitates the interchange of metadata and/or program content, 3) it
provides a way to track the history of a piece of program content from its
source elements through final production, 4) it makes it possible to render
downstream (with appropriate equipment), 5) it provides a convenient way to
"wrap" all elements of a project together for archiving. By preserving
comprehensive source referencing, and abstracting the creative decisions
that are made, AAF improves workflow and simplifies project management. For
more information, see the various resources under the 'Technical' tab at the
top of this FAQ."

This is not just about getting data from server to server, it is about
building metadata models that provide exciting new features by wrapping
content. In fact these features are becoming a key differentiator in
Broadcast Enterprise Systems.

The point about namespace is an interesting one. I found when dealing with a
client in South Africa they had a particular problem with many applications
and multiple languages (11) and multiple formats (Radio, web, TV) with
multiple contexts. Namespaces are a serious issue and integrity of
information from one application to the next is a possible point of massive
complexity.

The approach I use is to start thinking about higher levels of abstraction.
Look at the metamodel - the framework that describes the metadata itself and
ensure that this supports all the semantic concepts. In essence a metamodel
is the collection of concepts that are the vocabulary with which you are
talking about a certain domain. Without being concerned with specific
technologies.

You may also then find yourselves dealing with metameta-models...but I am
learning not to make big posts here so I'll leave that for now...:) I'll be
glad to know anyone got this far...

Cheers,

jod

----- Original Message -----
From: "Donna M. Fritzsche" <donnamarie at amichi.info>
To: <chiara at chiarafox.com>; <Sigia-l at asis.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] Taxonomy/Classification IA and Enterprise IA


> At 10:00 AM -0800 3/19/03, Chiara Fox wrote:
> >Hi Donna-
> >
> >Yes and more. By "Enterprise IA" I am referring to information
> >architecture(s) that is/are embraced by the entire organization (be that
a
> >company, univeristy, whatever). It goes beyond just what they are doing
on
> >the website to include the extranet, intranet, department databases,
> >advertising and print marketing, and more.
> >
> >Enterprise IA can take a lot of different forms. It could be a basic set
> >of metadata attributes that is used by all departments (HR to User
Support
> >to Financials) on their intranet sites. It could be a standard product
> >vocabulary that all departments use. It could be guidelines on how to
> >use/implement global, local, contextual, and supplemental navigation
> >company-wide. It could take many forms.
>
>
> Hi Chiara,
> Thanks for the detailed explanation of what you mean by "Enterprise IA".
> I agree with you and others that it is an important yet difficult process.
> In addition to some of the internal business challenges to overcome, there
> will also be challenges presented by preexisting industry standards (for
> instance, chemical industry terminology & coding vs pharmaceutical world
> terminology & coding ..etc).  While often similar, they are rarely the
same
> and mapping conventions will need to be created so that preexisting
> applications can continue to work.
>
> As you mention, some of this can be handled by creating standard
> enterprise-wide metadata attributes paired with controlled vocabularies
and
> the intelligent use of  synonyms, etc.
>
> Some of it can be overcome by creating modular attribute groupings.  For
> instance, the following paper represents some methodologies that might be
> used to overcome the varied applications that exist within the same
company
> but that require different sets of metadata attributes and controlled
> vocabularies:
>
> Application profiles: mixing and matching metadata schemas
> by Rachel Heery and Manjula Patel
> http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue25/app-profiles/intro.html
>
> Heery and Patel discuss a very modular approach.  This architecture could
> handle a variety of situations, both from a technical perspective and a
> business/pragmatic perspective.  Does anyone on the list have experience
> with this approach? I would love to talk to them about it or hear if it
was
> successful.
>
> Finally, there will be times when, due to historic reasons, business
reasons
> or the nature of the users and content  itself, - that attribute and
> vocabulary sets wont  map to each other in a simple manner.  There have
been
> some proposals on how to handle these mappings intelligently - I don't
have
> the links right now, but I will try to find them. (I think they were
called
> attribute bridges?). (I'm not talking about topic maps - there are some
good
> ideas there, but I also think some problems - just my opinion, not ready
to
> defend it at the moment.)
>
> Thanks for your insights and thought provoking ideas-
>
> Donna M. Fritzsche
> Partner
> Amichi, LLC
> www.amichi.info
> donnamarie at amichi.info
> (773) 680-2188
>
> ------------
> When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
> *Plain text, please; NO Attachments
>
> ASIST IA 03 Summit: Making Connections
> http://www.asist-events.org/IASummit2003/
>
> Searchable list archive:   http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
> ________________________________________
> Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: Sigia-l at asis.org
> Changes to subscription: http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l
>
>