docs.google.com/document/d/1VwSyv2VBGn61NJF62vz5ERM9mBbm7X3jxBQKFA5BPC4/edit
]]>Here’s the DC Terms file:
dl.dropbox.com/u/28481025/Proposed%20Dublin%20Core%20Metadata%20Structure.docx
]]>I’m also wondering what the most flexible and portable way to encode this information once we have it. DC doesn’t seem to be robust enough, and coming up with my own format won’t make the information likely to be reused.
]]>I’m also interested in putting effort into building stronger networks between oral history (metadata) practitioners, librarians, archivists, digital humanists.
]]>Many thanks!
]]>The first is the process of (re-) encoding interviews in a digital format (which of course involves time, resources, etc).
The second is doing so in a way that is as future-proof as possible, especially in regards to web standards. Web formats for audio
and video
are still sort of up in the air, with some browsers supporting MP3 and M4V, while others support OGG, WEBM, etc. Unlike images, you need multiple versions for different browsers (unless you use Flash, then you block out most mobile devices).
We generally store our media in uncompressed formats, which is probably overkill in terms of fidelity (especially for audio). It’s not a bad idea, but it definitely adds a layer of processing for any sort of online projects.
It would be great to have a system like NPR’s Create Once, Publish Everywhere (COPE), which not only separates content from design, but also separates content from presentation across multiple instances.
So in the case of web media, such a system might take the digital archival copy and create web-friendly versions on demand as needed for different projects. Sounds doable actually, given the right circumstances.
… I may be getting carried away. 🙂
]]>Thanks,
Jim
]]>