TF Media Preparation MeetingPrague

andy.zbinden@switch.ch

TF-Media Preparation Meeting, Prague, 5.11.2009

© 2009 SWITCH

Contents

• About myself

• About the Task Force– General overview and examples– Work Items

• Roundup

40 minutes

2

© 2009 SWITCH

About myself

• SWITCH employee for over 12 years

• Team leader of internal IT services for 6 years

• Team leader of the SWITCHcast team for 6 months

• New to international working groups

• Key qualities: – Abstract thinker, rather in concepts than in details– Love to dive into interoperability and strategic problems

3

© 2009 SWITCH

The Components

© 2009 SWITCH 5

The Components

© 2009 SWITCH

The Media Management Platform

• Metadata• Preproduction• Cutting, Arranging• Enrichment • Production• Access Rights

& Licenses• Costs

& Compensations• Supervision

6

© 2009 SWITCH

Details (1) – TV Contents

Example: nanoo.tv – Full-length TV features for usage in media school

• External metadata import• External preprocessing (cutting, chaptering)• External searchability through

– Library catalog– SWITCHcollection

• Issues:– Input: API – $$ and : royalties – Access rights: royalties – Output: streaming only, no downloading

7

© 2009 SWITCH

Details (1) – organizational viewnanoo.tv and ZHdK: • TV-channels for arts students

8

© 2009 SWITCH 9

Details (1) – techies‘ view

© 2009 SWITCH

Details (1) – legal view

10

• Different paths for metadata and movie (media)– (Numbers corresponding with legal document Dr. Gasser)

(Bi-color boxes might technically be within Werft22 or SWITCH)

© 2009 SWITCH 11

Details (1) – our view

Example:nanoo.tv

© 2009 SWITCH

Process 1 – part 1

• Process 1a: from antenna to disk– The raw tv channel is being stored to a 7-day buffer– The subject specialist (Fachreferent) selects a movie via EPG

(electronic program guide)– The raw movie (satellite format) is moved from buffer to PreProd,

and being converted for cutting (proxy format)– The specialist cuts the movie, adds chapters etc. and therewith

inadvertently consumes parts of the movie– The specialist adds more metadata– The movie is post-processed, becomes a Master (mpeg2), a DVD

and a streaming version (flv)– Master, metadata and streaming version is stored to disk– Metadata goes to Nebis (library catalog system) and Collection

(learning object repository index)

12

© 2009 SWITCH

Process 1 – part 2

• Process 1b: from disk to class– The tutor looks for an appropriate movie both in Nebis (library

catalog system) and in Collection (learning object repository index)– By clicking the found link (URL) their access rights are being

verified and…– …the movie (flv) is being delivered to class for consumption – The consumption is being logged for statistical reasons and for

determining fees owed to the copyright collecting agency

13

© 2009 SWITCH

Process 2: Cutting out a segment• Getting from storage:

– Metadata – Master

• Saving to storage:– Metadata– Markers (start and stop times) (no further movie data)

• Saving DVD as stand-alone movie optional

14

© 2009 SWITCH

Details (2) – Didactics

Example: Unterrichtsvideos– Snippets from school situations for didactic purposes

• Strong, granulary fine access rights• Strong legal constraints (personality protection)• Issues:

– Input: API for downloads, lots of small movies– Access Rights: API to external Authorization Service– Output: streaming only, no downloading

15

© 2009 SWITCH 16

Details (2) – our view

Example:unterrichtsvideos.ch

© 2009 SWITCH

Details (3) - Embedding

Example: Embedded into LMS– Channel (Container) definition and access via LMS

• Easy for professors– Doesn’t need to log in to Media Management Platform (MMP)

• AUP transparency– AUP of MMP AUP of LMS MMP > LMS?

• Roles and management access– How does Professor (who does recording) grant access to assistant

(who does processing)?

• Issues:– Legal: AUP transparency or nesting– Access: how to grant access to assistant – for processing video

17

© 2009 SWITCH 18

Details (3) – Embedding

© 2009 SWITCH

Details (4) – Automation

Example: Automated Recording– Lecture hall fully equipped, non-manned recording of Professor

• Easy for professor– Doesn’t need to do anything

• Supervision and alarming– E-mail, SMS, Remote Desktop supervision of 6 parallel tracks

• Expandability– Remote Control: machine-to-machine interface– Automatic recording due to university calendar

• Issues– Security– Access rights

19

© 2009 SWITCH

Details (5) – Roles and rights

Example: Roles and Rights– Lecture hall fully equipped, non-manned recording of Professor

• Who may produce– The one who produces (Professor) is not the one who pais (ICT

Department)

• Who may process– The professor is not the assistant. What if the assistant is also a

lecturer? Who’s the assistant’s assistant?

• Who may supervise– Is the “Organizational Administrator” (Master of Contents) in ICT or

in E-Learning Department?

• Who may consume– Who defines who may see which contents? Org-Admin or Prof?

20

© 2009 SWITCH

Details (5) – Roles and rights

© 2009 SWITCH

• Feedback– In lecture halls, feedback was always difficult due to time, distance,

number of participants, …

• Annotated Lectures– An idea by shanghailectures.org : feedback for questions or

comments

• Improvement of quality– The professor learns what was misunderstood, what was good

• Issues – How to change contents gradually (not having to re-do the whole

contents)?– How to manage the feedback in large quantities?

22

Details (6) – Feedback

© 2009 SWITCH

Details (6) – Feedback

23

© 2009 SWITCH

Details (7)

“Lower Layers”– Safe, findable, exchangeable, archiving

• Save storage and access– Some content is highly critical (patients, pupils)

• Findable – Metadata structure: Dublin Core? How much mandatory?– How to make available? Library Catalog? LOR?

• Exchangeability – Is a big issue when it comes to MMS modules and semifinished

products

• Archiving – Involves conversion into contemporary data formats

24

© 2009 SWITCH

Why do we do that – or: “What’s in it for me?”Rather than promoting instances of the service itself (the

services themselves) i'd go to a meta-level and promote • the potential for

– the educational market, – the universities and – the propagation of knowledge in Europe in general.

• More a "What's in it for me" view for the customers on a basic level.

– Why multimedia in universities? – What's the benefit? – What are possible pitfalls and how to avoid them?

25

© 2009 SWITCH

Potential for educational market, the universities and knowledge in Europe – 1/2Publishing educational contents (i.e. videos in our case) does• Stop the invention of the wheel over and over again• Improve the contents of learning content (see detail 6)• Free lecture halls students can attend from home• Enable repetition students can rehearse lectures

It can be useful for• Promotion of tutors high quality lectures as a teaser• Promotion of universities excellent professor as a magnet

to attract students• Promotion of higher education itself access by broad public

26

© 2009 SWITCH

Potential for educational market, the universities and knowledge in Europe – 2/3Obstacles in the way to get there

Why tutors see no benefit in making their lecture available:• Plagiarism: “others use my dearly produced lectures”• Offense: “others emphasize on my faults”• © threats: “the material I used may be copyrighted”• No merits for ‘going public’

To overcome:• Mental hurdles• Procedural hurdles

27

© 2009 SWITCH

Potential for educational market, the universities and knowledge in Europe – 3/3What must be solved, too:

• Easy production our main goal here• Easy feedback students and colleagues help improving

contents• Easy correction replace sequences, slides, sound• Easy legal protection access to high quality non-

copyrighted graphics etc.

28

© 2009 SWITCH

Restrictions• Resources

– Few money– Few places in lecture halls– Few preparatory hours

• Students – Many more and growing

• Stakes– High @ Exams – every student wants to see the lectures again

• Side effects– Time is aways short– Pride to be seen by many is not yet established– Envy that others might use “my” content is existent– Copyright questions are unsolved or unknown

29

© 2009 SWITCH

Main objectives and structure• B: Overview of (national) activities, deployments, and

services– Frans Ward (SURFnet)

• C: Coordinating/Collaborating media production, management, and distribution service development and deployment activities

– Michal Krsek (CESNET)

• D: Fostering federated media content and/or metadata repositories

– Jose Maria Fontanillo (RedIRIS)

• E: Investigate and liaise with other communities– Vicente Goyanes de Miguel (University of Vigo)

• A: Knowledge dissemination and service promotion– Peter Szegedi (TERENA)

30

© 2009 SWITCH

Task Force

To get the work done, the overall problem has been split into handy pieces

A.knowledge dissemination and service promotion,link to TF-PR

B.Overview of nat’l activities, deployments and servicesC.Coordinating / collaborating media production,

management and distribution service development and deployment activities

D.Fostering federated media content and/or metadata repositories

E.Investigate and liaise with other communitieslink to TERENA TFs, EUNIS e-Learning, Opencast, Steeple, Cinegrid, Standardisation bodies

31

© 2009 SWITCH

Task Force

TF members • Are interested in the subject – be it the whole or a part• Have overcome “not invented here” and “mine is better

than yours”• Have understood that ICT becomes more complicated and

needs more specialists and thus

• Have understood that we can’t win as “lonely wolves”

32

© 2009 SWITCH

Last but not least

Thank you for being here

Let’s go to work.

33