From time to time I need to reference Heidi Johnson's work published as part of the LREC workshops in 2002 and 2006 under the title: "International Workshop on Resources and Tools in Field Linguistics". The papers never got hosted on the official LREC website. Rather the papers were hosted on the MPI website.
Who do I talk to about getting these papers into the https://aclanthology.org database of papers. They would get the attention they need in that paper repository.
Here is a fascinating list of record labels which published songs from Ethnic groups around the world.
https://web.archive.org/web/20041211181248/http://ethnomusicologie.free.fr/labels.html
How do you ensure permissions? If other archives post the same content online. It’s not just about distributing content but also about distributing content and access permissions.
With the rise in citation of content: How do you show researchers that two files are the same? Where do you point citations?
Is the role of a dictionary to regulate or to standardize spelling? Is it to validate a speech variety as being real or a bon fide language? Or is it for documenting and establishing the relationships and connections between things (plants, animals, fish, spirits/gods, medicines, etc.) as they are emicly viewed, for connecting people via collaboration, or connecting related concepts and their classes together into documented sets? Or even connecting these things and relationships as they are viewed in one culture to the same things and relationships as they are viewed in another culture or more broadly cross-culturally? Continue reading
I have had some ideas I wanted to try out for using the iPad as a tool for collecting photo metadata. Working in a corporate archive, I have become aware of several collections of photos without much metadata associated with them.
The photos are the property of (or are in the custodial care of) the company I work at (in their corporate archive).
The subject of the photos are either of two general areas:
Archives in more modern contexts are trying to show their relevance to not only academics, but also to general members of communities. In the United States there is a whole movement of social history. There are community preservation societies which take on the task of collecting old photographs and their stories and preserving, and presenting them for future generations.
The challenge at hand is: "How do we enrich photos by adding metadata to photos in the collections of archives?" There are many solutions to this kind of task. The refining, distilling, and reduction of stories and memories to writing and even to metadata fields is no easy task, nor is it a task that one person can do on their own. One solution, which is often employed by community historians is the personal interview. By interviewing the photographers or people who were at an event and asking them questions about a series of photos it presents an atmosphere of inquisitiveness and one where the story-teller is valued because they have a story-listener. This basic personal connection allows for interactions to occur across generational and technological barriers.
The crucial question is: "How do we facilitate an interaction which is positive for all the parties involved?" The effort and thinking behind answering this question has more to do with shaping human interactions than with anything else. We are also talking about using technology in this interaction. This is true UX or (User Experience).
This past summer I have had several experiences with facilitating one-on-one interactions between knowledgeable parties working with photographs and with someone acting on behalf of the corporate archive. To facilitate this interaction a GoogleDoc Spreadsheet was set up and the person acting on the behalf of the archive was granted access to the spreadsheet. The individual conducting the interview and listening to the stories brought their own netbook (small laptop) from which to enter any collected data. They were also given a photo album full of photos, which the interviewee would look through. This set-up required overcoming several local environmental challenges. As discussed below, some of these challenges were better addressed than others.
The challenge of keeping up to 150 photos organized durring an interview so that metadata about any given photo could be collected and associated with only that photo. This was addressed by adhering an inventory sticker to the back of each photo and assigning each photo a single row in the GoogleDoc Spreadsheet. Using GoogleDocs was not the ideal solution, but rather than a solution of some compromises:
More columns than can be practically managed
To maximize time spent with the interviewee the photos and any metadata written or known about a photo was put into the GoogleDoc Spreadsheet prior to the interview. Sometimes this was not done by the interviewer but rather by someone else working on behalf of the archive. Durring the interview the interviewer could tell which data fields were empty by looking for the gray cells in the spreadsheet. However, just because the cells were did not mean that the interviewee was more prone to provide the desired, unknown, information.
Grey Areas Show Metadata fields which are empty
One unanticipated challenge which was encountered in the interviews was that as the interviewer would bring out an album or two of photos that the interviewees would be able to cover more photos than the interviewer could record.
Let me spell it out. There is one interviewer and two interviewees there are 150 photos in an album lying open on the table. All three participants are looking at the photo album. The interviewee A says look that is so-and-so
and then interviewee B (because the other page is closer to them) says and this is so-and-so!
This happens for about 8 of the 12 facing photos. Because the interviewer is still typing the first name mentioned they ask and when do you think that was?
But the metadata still comes in faster, as the second interviewee did not hear the question and the first one did but still thinking. The bottom line is that more photos are viewed and commented on faster than can be recorded.
Something that could help this process would be to in some way to slow-down (or moderate) the ability of the interviewee(s) to access the photos. Something that could synchronize the processing times with the viewing times. By scanning the photos and then displaying them on a tablet it slows down the viewing process and integrates the recording of data with the viewing of photos.
An interview is, at some level, an interaction. One question which comes up is How does the technology used affect that interaction? What we found was that a laptop usually was situated between the interviewer and the interviewees. This positioned the parties in an apposing manner. Rather than the content becoming the central focus of both parties, the content was either in front of the interviewer or in front of the interviewees. A tablet changes this dynamic in the interaction. It brings both parties together over a single set of content, both positionally and cognitively. When the photo is displayed on the laptop, the laptop has to be rotated so that the interviewees can see the image and then turned so that the interviewer can input the data. This is not the case for a tablet.
When Paper is used for collecting metadata it is ideal to have one piece of paper for each photo. Sometimes this method is preferable to using a single computer. I used this method when I had a photo display and about 20 albums and about 200 people all filling out details at once.
People filling out metadata forms infront of a photo display.
When there is no internet there is no access to GoogleDocs. We encountered this when we went to someone's apartment, expecting interent because the interent is available on campus and this apartment was also on campus. Fortunately we did have a back up plan and paper pen was used. But this means that we now had to type out the data, which was written down on the paper; in effect doing the same recording work twice.
Photo albums have a certain bulk and cumbersome-ness which is multiplied when carrying more than one album at a time. Add to this a computer laptop and one might as well add to the list of required items, a hand truck with which to carry everything. A tablet is all in all a lot smaller and lighter.
Laptop and TabletThis image is credited to Alia Haley [2] Alia Haley. 31 August 2011. Tablet vs. Laptop. Church Mag. [Accessed: 11 September 2011] http://churchm.ag/tablet-vs-laptop. [Link]
As I mentioned before, I had an iPad in my possession for a few days. So to capitalize on the opportunity, I bought a few apps from the app store, as I mentioned that I would and tried them out.
Photoforge2
The first app I tried was Photoforge2. It is a highly rated app in the app store. I found that it delivered as promised. One could add or edit the IPTC and EXIF metadata. One could even edit where the photo was taken with a pin drop interface.
iPad Fotoforge Location Data
iPad Fotoforge Metadata Editor
Meta Editor
Meta Editor, another iPad app, which was also highly acclaimed performed task almost as well. Photoforge2 had some photo editing features which were not needed in our project. Whereas Meta Editor was focused only on metadata elements.
MetadataEditor Location Data
So we needed something with a mechanism for capturing our customized data. Two options were found which seemed to avail themselves as suitable for the task. One was ideal the other rapidly deployable. Understanding the iPads' place in the larger place of corporate architecture, relationship to the digital repository, the process of data flow from the point of collection to dissemination, will help us to visualize the particular challenges that the iPad presents solutions for. Once we see where the iPad sits in relationship to the rest of the digital landscape I think it will be fairly obvious why one solution is ideal and the other rapidly deployable.
Placement in the iPad in the Information Architecture Picture
In my previous post on Social Metadata Collection [3]Hugh J. Paterson III. 29 June 2011. The Journeyler. [Accessed: 13 September 2011] https://hugh.thejourneyler.org/social-meta-data-collection. [Link] I used the below image to show where the iPad was used in the metadata collection process.
Meta-data Collection Model
Since that time, as I have shown this image when I talk about this idea, I have become aware that the image is not detailed enough. Because it is not detailed enough it can lead to some wrong assumptions on how the iPad use being proposed actually works. So, I am presenting a new image with a greater level of detail to show how the iPad interacts with other corporate systems and workflows.
iPad Team as they fit with other digital elements.
There are several things to note here:
That said, it is important that the metadata be embedded in the presentation file of the image, as well as accessible to the Main container for the archival of the photos. The metadata also needs to sync between the iPad application and the Member Diaspora website. Metadata truly needs to flow through the entire system.
FileMaker Pro with File Maker Go
FileMaker Pro is a powerful database app. It could drive the Member Disporia website and then also sync with the iPad. This would be a one-stop solution and therefore and ideal solution. It is also complex and takes more skill to set up than I currently have, or I can currently spare to acquire. Both FileMaker Pro and its younger cousin Bento enable Photos to be embedded in the actual database.Several tips from the Bento forums on syncing photos which are part of the database:
Syncing pictures from Bento-Mac to Bento-iPad
Sync multiple photos or files from desktop to IPad
This is something which is important with regards to syncing with the iPad. To the best of my knowledge (and googling) no other database apps for the iPad or Android platforms allow for the syncing of photos within the app.
Bento
Bento is the rapidly deployable option.What are the differences between Bento 4 for Mac, Bento for iPad 1.1.x, and Bento for iPhone/iPod touch 1.1.x?
It took me about 2 hours (while doing other stuff) to download a trial version, find out how it worked, import my data from the GoogleDoc and then sync my database with the iPad.
Here is a YouTube video demonstrating my proof of concept using Bento.
httpv://youtu.be/_Eo5Ru0BF-k
Here is a series of iPad Screen shots.
Screen Long ways
Inputing Data
Data and Photo seen together.
Of course there is also the option to develop a custom iPad app for just our purposes. This entails some other kinds of planning, including but not limited to:
The table in this section shows the kinds of questions we are asking in our interviews. It is not only provided for reference as a discussion of the Information Architecture for the storage and elements of the metadata schema is out of the scope of this discussion. The list of questions and values presented in the table was derived as a minimal set of questions based on issues of Image Workflow Processing, Intelectual Property and Permissions, Academic Merit and input from the controlled vocabulary's Caption and Keywording Guidelines [4] Controlled Vocabulary. Caption and Keywording Guidelines. [Accessed: 13 September 2011] http://www.controlledvocabulary.com/metalogging/ck_guidelines.html. [Link] which is part of their series on metalogging. The table also shows corresponding IPTC, and EXIF data fields. (Though they are currently empty because I have not filed them in.) Understanding the relationships of XMP, IPTC, and EXIF also help us to understand why and how the iPad tool needs to interact with other Archiving solutions. However, it is not within the scope of this post to discuss these differences.Some useful resources on these issues are noted here:
It is sufficient to note that there is some, and only some overlap.
| Metadata Element | Purpose | Explanation | Doublin Core | IPTC Tags | EXIF Tags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Photo Collection | This is the name of the collection in which the photos reside | ||||
| Sub Collection | This is the name of the sub collection in which the photos reside | ||||
| Letter of Collection | Each collection is given an alpha character or a series of alpha characters, if the collection pertains to one people group then the alpha characters given to that collection are the three digit ISO 639-3 code | ||||
| Who input the Meta-data | This is the name of the person inputting the metadata | ||||
| Photo Number | This is the number of the photo as we have inventoried the photo | ||||
| Negative Number | This is the number of the photo as it appears on the negative (film strip) | ||||
| Roll | This is the ID of the Roll | Most sets of negatives are cut into strips of 5 or less this allows us to group these sets together to ID a “set” of photos | |||
| Section Number | If the items are in a book or a scrap book and that scrap book has a section this is where that is recoreded | ||||
| Page# | If a scrap book has a set of pages then this is where they are recoreded | ||||
| Duplicates | This is where the Photo ID of a duplicate item is referenced. | ||||
| Old Inventory Number(s) | This is the inventory number of an item if it were part of another invenotry system | ||||
| Photographer | This is the name of the photographer | ||||
| Subject 1 (who) | Who is in the photo, this should be an unlimited field. That is sveral names should be able to be added to this. | ||||
| Subject 2 | Who is in the photo, this should be an unlimited field. That is sveral names should be able to be added to this. | ||||
| Subject 3 | Who is in the photo, this should be an unlimited field. That is sveral names should be able to be added to this. | ||||
| Subject 4 | Who is in the photo, this should be an unlimited field. That is sveral names should be able to be added to this. | ||||
| Subject 5 | Who is in the photo, this should be an unlimited field. That is sveral names should be able to be added to this. | ||||
| People group | This is the name of the people group meneined in the ISO 639-3 codes | ||||
| ISO 639-3 Code | This is the ISO 639-3 code of the people group being photographed | ||||
| When was the photo Taken? | The date the photo was taken | ||||
| Country | The country in which the photo was taken | ||||
| District/City | This is the City where the photo was taken | ||||
| Exact Place | The exact place name where the photo was taken | ||||
| What is in the Photo (what) | This is an item in the photo | ||||
| What is in the Photo | Additional what is in the photo | ||||
| What is in the Photo | Addtional what is in the photo | ||||
| Why was the Photo Taken? | This is to help metadata providers think about how events get communicated | ||||
| Description | This is a description of the photo’s contents | This is not a caption but could be used as a caption | |||
| Who Provided This Meta-Data? And when? | We need to keep track of who is the source of certain metadata to understand its authority | ||||
| Who Provided This Meta-Data? And when? | We need to keep track of who is the source of certain metadata to understand its authority | ||||
| Who Provided This Meta-Data? And when? | We need to keep track of who is the source of certain metadata to understand its authority | ||||
| Who Provided This Meta-Data? And when? | We need to keep track of who is the source of certain metadata to understand its authority | ||||
| Who Provided This Meta-Data? And when? | We need to keep track of who is the source of certain metadata to understand its authority | ||||
| I am in this photo and I approve it to be on the internet. Put in "yes" or "No" and write your name in the next column. | Permission to distribute | ||||
| Name: | Name of the person releasing the photo | ||||
| How was this photo digitized? | Method of digitization and the tools used in digitization | ||||
| Who digitized This photo | This is the name of the person who did the digitization |
References
| ↑1 | Alia Haley. 31 August 2011. Tablet vs. Laptop. Church Mag. [Accessed: 11 September 2011] http://churchm.ag/tablet-vs-laptop. [<a href="http://churchm.ag/tablet-vs-laptop" title="Tablet vs Laptop">Link</a>] |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | Alia Haley. 31 August 2011. Tablet vs. Laptop. Church Mag. [Accessed: 11 September 2011] http://churchm.ag/tablet-vs-laptop. [Link] |
| ↑3 | Hugh J. Paterson III. 29 June 2011. The Journeyler. [Accessed: 13 September 2011] https://hugh.thejourneyler.org/social-meta-data-collection. [Link] |
| ↑4 | Controlled Vocabulary. Caption and Keywording Guidelines. [Accessed: 13 September 2011] http://www.controlledvocabulary.com/metalogging/ck_guidelines.html. [Link] |
| ↑5 | Early Innovations, LLC. 2011. Photolinker Metadata Tags. [Accessed: 13 September 2011] http://www.earlyinnovations.com/photolinker/metadata-tags.html. [Link] |
| ↑6 | David Riecks. 2010. IPTC Standard Photo Metadata (July 2010). International Press Telecommunications Council. [Accessed: 13 September 2011] http://www.iptc.org/std/photometadata/documentation/IPTC-PLUS-Metadata-Panel-UserGuide_6.pdf [Link] |
© 2005-2024 Hugh Paterson III All Rights Reserved.
By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your Words, Name & Website URL in attribution.
Details of your viewing experience maybe retained and used. -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright
