Open University Workshop Videos

On Friday the 27th November we held a Clipper project meeting at the OU and then followed it with 2 workshops that were also videoed and webcast live over the internet by the OU. It was a long day but very productive. The workshops were held at the Knowledge Media Institute, Open University, Milton Keynes.

IIIF Workshop

The first workshop was delivered by Tom Crane of Digerati, with whom we have been discussing what  technical standards to include in the Clipper project. The subject of the workshop was the International Image Interoperability Framework (IIIF), we have been discussing how this might be extended to cover annotating audio and video resources. You can find the webcast at this link http://stadium.open.ac.uk/2620

Clipper Workshop

The second workshop was a short overview of the Clipper project, based on our previous community engagement workshops, followed by a question and answer session. You can find the webcast at this link http://stadium.open.ac.uk/2624

 

Clipper – Legal Issues – the long version

At the last Jisc sandpit workshop we were asked by the Judges to expand on the legal issues surrounding the use of Clipper. This is quite a long post but we thought it best to have this all in one place. Here we analyse the situation from 2 points of view (this is a working draft):

  1. The owners / managers of the audio-visual content that is being clipped and annotated
  2. The users who are generating the clips and annotations

Continue reading

Technical Standards / System Design Part 2: Looking Forwards to Phase 3

The current prototype Clipper application is built using these open Web standards

Moving forwards in phase 3 we envisage using / investigating these standards

Our aim from the beginning has been to create a toolkit that has little or no dependency on any proprietary and ‘closed’ technology or standards. Choosing the above standards was a good start. Moving forwards we shall need to create a more detailed data model. We had been aware of the W3C Annotation Data model: http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/ and the W3C web annotation working group http://www.w3.org/annotation/.

From a research point of view the following 3 standards could provide the vital ‘glue’ to bind a Clipper installation or service into the global digital research ecosystem

  1. DOI: Digital Object Identifier System: In our discussions at the Roslin Institute we have identified the possible use of DOI’s to identify Cliplists, clips and annotations as well as the audio-visual resources they are linked to
  2. ORCID: Provides a way of linking annotations etc. to individual researchers
  3. OAI-PMH; Provides a useful way of sharing Cliplist information between repositories

As a result of our community engagement activities we have been fortunate in encountering Tom Crane and the Digirati company and in the ensuing discussions Tom has been suggesting that that these existing and emerging standards will be really worth exploring in Phase 3 and we think they look really promising:

Tom has pointed out that the IIIF Presentation API – http://iiif.io/api/presentation/2.1/ with its concept of an IIIF manifest is close to our idea of the project being the container for Cliplists etc. He has also suggested that the IIIF Shared Canvas: http://iiif.io/model/shared-canvas/1.0/index.html concept can be extended to time based media. With some time-based media vocabulary the IIIF work might be just what we need in Clipper. Tom is coming to the OU this Friday (27/11/15) to present the work of the IIIF and we hope to discuss this further with him then and make plans for phase 3.

Technical Standards / System Design Part 1: Reflections

We have been discussing the Clipper toolkit with people recently as part of our community consultation process. One interesting question we have been asked by the digital library / information community is what ‘Data Model’ are we using? To be honest we have not thought too much about this until now as we had done a fair bit on that previously around 2009. So, a bit of explanation here might help us to clarify our position going forwards.

In the earliest phase of Clipper (around 2009) we created it in Adobe Flash and ActionScript using the Adobe AIR rich ‘internet application’ to create a cross-platform app (PC and Mac that is). This was a little before the HTML5 take off and the rise of tablets and smart phones). In that earlier project we did a lot of thinking about the data flows involved in the user interacting with audio-visual resources and what data would need to be gathered by the system to deliver the functionality the user needed. You can find a set of graphic flowcharts representing the data flow at this link. At the time we were fortunate in working with a colleague at Manchester University (Gayle Calverley) who had just completed a study for Jisc on the types of metadata needed for the storage and management of time based media in repositories. The report that Gayle created was thorough and really useful it was called the “Time Based Media Application Profile”, and it is still on line:

http://wiki.manchester.ac.uk/tbmap/index.php/Main_Page

In the end we did not implement a detailed data model based on that study, instead we developed our own ‘slimline’ version based on user ‘walkthroughs’ of the system and ‘reverse engineering’ approaches to see what data would be required to deliver the functionality we needed. The metadata schema we came up with was based on Dublin Core. We produced our own report detailing our approach to metadata and, with Gayle’s help, mapped it to the Jisc TBMAP report. This approach certainly made our life a lot easier then and to extent it still does today, it is useful to reflect on this as we go forwards and I think we shall certainly be using this and Gayle’s report in Phase 3.

Royal Conservatoire of Scotland and Roslin Institute Feedback Online

We have been very fortunate in visiting these two institution to demonstrate the toolkit and get feedback and both have agreed to participate in pilot projects on phase 3, which is great. What is striking is the similarity in research data management needs despite being in very different research environments.

Royal Conservatoire of Scotland Feedback http://blog.clippertube.com/index.php/the-royal-conservatoire-of-scotland-51115/

Roslin Institute Feedback – http://blog.clippertube.com/index.php/the-roslin-institute-university-of-edinburgh-131115/

London Workshop Summary

We held our third community consultation and co-design workshop at the British Library Labs on Monday the  26th of October  October. Thanks Mahendra Mahey, manager of British Library Labs, for organising the hosting of the event. We really do hope to return in Phase 3!and thanks to all the people who attended and gave so generously of their time and insights.

This was another busy and productive workshop with lots of ideas and suggestions and collaborative opportunities to follow up. For us, a particularly useful encounter was with Tom Crane from Digirati and this has continued really useful dialogue about technical standards that we are working into our phase 3 plans. It is really encouraging to see people so keen about adopting the toolkit. Below I have recorded the main points in bullet format.

11:00 Demonstration – prototype system, initial feedback and discussion

  • Good for language teaching – immediate use (Elina +)
  • UCL central teaching tech support – many uses including lecture videos
  • BUFVC – yes we could use it to extend our service
  • Audio annotation – i.e. to be able to attach / pin an audio recording file as an annotation to a resource in a Cliplist (the resource could be an audio or video). Useful for many purposes as well as accessibility such as language teaching (e.g. translation)
    • cf with the visual annotations for audio suggested in Manchester
  • Using with audio / video submissions for assessments
    • Teacher clips / annotates a student submission
    • Students clip / annotate their resources for submission
  • What about enabling student annotations to be put through Turnitin? – would need to use the Turnitin API and save the annotation as a PDF? Or somehow upload the annotation text for a Turnitin report
  • Visual drawn annotations on top of the video (linked to the timeline to complement the text annotation (use the Canvas element overlay the video)
  • Manual entry of times in the clip creator
  • Are the URLs persistent? (Mahendra / Daniela / Ollie). Yes as long as you follow good practice or control the resources – even if the link breaks the UGC will still be useful
  • UCL can I test with my own files? Yes using the paste URL (Will uses Roslin example)
  • Mahendra HTML5 works on mobile?
  • BUFVC and UCL – aware of videojs and the author Brian Cove
  • Ollie – can we add web links to the text? Yes
  • Mahendra – any limit to annotation text? No. Can we use Unicode? Yes
  • UCL have a sound cloud collection – could they use it with that? Need to investigate APIs etc. – this is a theme emerging the need to integrate with social media services etc.
  • Annotations – how are they presented – can they pop up? (suggests that customizable edit and consumer views might be useful)
  • Can we have annotations on the video? And just on still images?
  • What format are the annotations in? HTML. Suggests a need for rich text editor possibly plus the annotations etc. can be outputted in different formats CSV, Excel, XML
  • UCL Can the thumbnails be changed? Yes if the resources are on your server (what about UCL as development partners?)
  • BUFVC – Citations? By which we mean is it capable of taking the catalogue information/ metadata from a resource collection and using it to pre-populate fields? Yes as long as Clipper is integrated into the system. A good way to visualize this is to look at the existing Clipper integration with YouTube – where Clipper is using the open APIs to harvest and use the data to populate the title and description fields and the thumbnails
  • UCL / Pete Collins Jisc – could Clipper be integrated into Facebook? Yes
  • What about licences? Of the resource content? Really about user awareness but we also need to be able to represent licence conditions clearly in Clipper. Also needs to be born in mind that clipper only gives users access to the resources that have rights to view. If a Cliplist is shared with people who do not have the rights to view / listen then they see the annotations and descriptions and titles of the Clips but not the a/v content.
  • Ollie – the sharing experiences of services like soundcloud would be useful. The ability to share with selected users, groups, social media and to use tags and categories to manage your own content and help other people find it
  • CF Facebook closed groups and open group and notifications. So some stuff could be open (metadata and UGC) to encourage people to find and identify stuff of interest to them so that they would then go further and log in
  • Tree Browser and Daily Motion – Trevors Note

11:45 Practical hands-on – try it and feedback

  • UCL – mobile first, responsive design policy especially for students. Discussion about how most students will consume content on mobile devices (?) so Clipper out needs to be responsive. Discussion about edit view will probably need to be on laptop
  • There are problems with mobile video on Apple devices – explore and answer
  • UCL – would be good for creating a synopsis of the content via annotations and clips and also for deployment in Moodle as a plugin (?)
  • Does it / can it work offline?
  • Tom Crane – difference between Creation view / interface and consumer view interface
  • Will there be short codes for WordPress? https://codex.wordpress.org/Shortcode
  • Ollie UAL – Ability to handle groups would be good (permissions) ability to follow groups and get updates and see latest activity on a dashboard (admin teacher views of the dashboard and user activity)
  • Following on from above – Olli and Trevor and others discussion – best to use existing tools for collaboration and groups work etc. such as WordPress, VLE and Moodle – so best to look at integration with them? So more user management and permissions is the key to that kind of thing
  • Linda from BUFVC – more metadata is needed – to be pulled in from existing catalogue data to pre-populate fields in Cliplists etc. so that it could be part of the workflow
  • Possible answers for collaboration tools are Bootcamp for comments also look at the P2 theme from WordPress
  • Our use of WordPress is good for rapid prototyping – from the Southampton colleague who did Synote
  • Note for Phase 3 bid examples of early adopters with screen shots if possible

13:30 Discussion – implications for data management, service development and policy

Data management

  • Useful for teaching and using an institutional archive
  • Issues about anonymity, ethics, sharing
  • RDF storage of comments?
  • What happens at the end of time limited content
  • Tom Crane need licences for annotations and access conditions by default as options
  • Share via zip and email
  • How might the licence conditions of annotation relate to the audio / video – need to make clear the distinction to the users (both editors and consumers)
  • How can you search through the different resources? Needs to be connected into the collection concerned – the current connection to YouTube is a good example
  • HTML5 is fine for the tool and storing the data but what happens when the standards change?
    • Good question – well HTML is probably the most documented electronic communications standard in history so prospects for access and reuse into new formats are very good
    • In Clipper there is a 3 way split of storing data that provides good forwards compatibility and preservation
      • Database
      • JSON
      • HTML (presentation

Service Development

  • UCL – audio-visual resources are in general difficult to manage
  • Clipper could be used as an institutional service and as an individual personal service
  • The copy and paste URL would be a very useful function – potentially cover a lot of independent researcher scenarios
  • Use Clipper as an ‘API’ tool. By hooking it up with existing services such as:
    • Opencast / Matterhorn
    • Vimeo
    • Soundscape
    • Kaltura
    • BUFVC
    • Jisc Media Hub
  • Tom Crane Digirati. The IIIF standards community is very interested in this toolkit and could be of great help.
  • Running a service means dealing with standards and exceptions (BUFVC)
  • Integration with Turnitin for annotations used in assessment
  • What about using Clipper to create citations from audio-visual datasets?

Policy

  • Ideally Clipper would be bundled with a policy development pack highlighting some of the issues and questions that need to be addressed when considering an institutional deployment. Especially relevant for learning and teaching where policy is underdeveloped. Would be good to have some example policies and a policy editor to create / paste the text. Have a policy agreement tick box facility
  • Be good to have the ability for policy to cover projects and groups of users on projects
  • Data protection issues
  • Levels of sharing inside an institution should be possible (onion skin metaphor)
  • Openness should be encouraged policy wise and possible technically
  • External search of Clipper content? How would that be managed?
  • Have a licence picker (all the Creative Commons options by default plus straight copyright)
  • Would be good to save direct to an institutional repository to have plug ins to do so – and to shared services like Figshare
  • For sustainability it might be a good idea to apply to the Apache incubator? Needs 3 independent people
  • The open annotation standard and the IIIF standard might be the answer?

Tom Crane (Digirati) Notes

  • Provenance of annotations (who, when)
  • Search API – see the IIIF search spec
  • JSON => JSON-LD this would allow project JSON to stand alone
  • Look at alignment to common vocabularies (to increase take up)
  • Dealing with 3rd party resources – how would the authentication flow work
  • Common Annotation format
    • Annotation server
    • Tagging
    • Searching
  • Encourage video providers to enable CORS > to allow snapshots of the canvas
  • Indirection – allow an annotations to be pinned to non existent segments of video cf for film restoration
  • Indirection – allows annotation targets of an abstract ‘canvas’ allows different formats
  • Ability to annotate regions of the image (x,y,w,h)
  • Clipper app is both an authoring and viewing environment. What ir produces needs to be able to be consumed in simpler read-only viewers.

14:30 Technical discussion, ideas and requirements for institutional deployment / national service

Writing up in progress from audio

Manchester Workshop Summary

We held our second community consultation and co-design workshop at Manchester School of Art on Wednesday the 14th of October. Many thanks to Steve Hawsley for helping us to organise this and thanks to all the people who attended and gave so generously of their time and insights.

We were able to go into matters quite deeply and got some incredibly useful suggestions and insights about the possible configurations of the toolkit and how a service might work.

It was a really successful event where we went deeper into the issues than before, this connection we were extremely fortunate to have representatives from the North West Film Archive and Manchester City Council Archives and Libraries, as well as individual researchers and teaching and support staff. As ever, there were some really useful insights and contributions from the participants we would particularly like to thank two individuals:

Eleanor Hannan – from Manchester Metropolitan University – for great insights into how to handle the Clips interface

Turki Alshehri – from Leeds University – for the ideas of being able to have a ‘paste your file  URL’ to create custom clips on the fly

I will be writing up the feedback shortly, but just want to say this format of consultation is far exceeding our initial expectations, so much so that if we progess to phase 3 I think we shall repeat it. It obvious of course when you think about it – direct contact with potential software and service users – it just saves so much time and wasted effort.

Edinburgh Workshop Feedback Notes

On the 26th of September 2015 we held our first community consultation and co-design workshop. Here are the feedback and notes from the event – we shall be using this going forwards.

Contents

  • Some Initial Reflections
  • Table Feedback and Facilitator notes
    • Policy Implications for service development
    • Technical Suggestions
    • Service Development Implications
    • Data Management Issues (RDM)
  • Post-It points
    • Annotations
    • Interface issues
    • Access Control and Security and Rights
    • Data management
    • Policy
    • Service Development Implications
    • Search
    • Sustainability / Support
    • Technical

Some Initial Reflections

  • After the data management feedback definitely got to check out the older clipper project docs for standards metadata and data flow etc.
  • Need an idea of the Clipper document structure (graphics)
  • Need a graphic of the workflow
  • Differentiation of Clipper from other tools is needed
  • Data management of big interest to some. Search function will need to reflect this. Suggest we have a simple search option then an advanced search option?
  • Suggestion for contextual search – OK but setting would need to be clear to the user – i.e. you need to know where you are searching
  • Interface issues –go for the biggest stumbling blocks first
  • We need to be able to accommodate more detailed data management model(s) in the future phase
  • Annotations are of big interest:
    • Tags and search tools for annotations, common some used, search by tag, title, description full text, rights, (categories?) relation of annotations to parent clips and cliplists for searching. Granular search options.
    • Option to name Annotation and Describe its contents and more:
    • Title /Author(s) / Description /Tags
    • URI for sharing an annotation
    • Rights for annotations (use URI refs for the rights licences and terms)
    • Access permissions for annotations
    • Embargo on annotations
    • Rights / Licence statement on Annotations
    • Ability to have rich formatting in annotation
    • Annotation version control and track changes?
    • Annotate specific points in the frame and
    • Links between the annotations i.e. jumping from one annotation to another (in the same clip / different clips in a cliplist / between different clips in different cliplists
    • Delete annotations?
    • Import slides from powerpoint/
    • Can we reference the annotations as URIs?
    • Feedback on annotations (and clips and cliplists?) Have comment on the feedback and stop it becoming a forum! Like Derek at Stirling – limit conversation to an initial annotation by the ‘author’ (nb there could be more than one author) and then one level of comments by other users of the system. In the comments section people could have a ‘conversation’ using the twitter style protocols of @ and perhaps # – like in the BBC blogs etc.
    • Annotations for screen readers – needs to be accessible
    • Audio annotations?
    • Also suggestion to be able to annotate parts of the screen – either by textual reference (top right) or graphically by use of the Canvas property
    • Have a pencil icon in an Annotation list view open editing functions (simple) have a WordPress style kitchen sink icon to open the rich text editing functions. Perhaps have the option to have the editing window expand to fill the available space for text intensive work and then toggle back to the smaller default display?
  • User customisation options for both authors and consumers – to choose the interface style they want to work with and functions
  • Access Control and Sharing
    • SSO for security and access levels of permissions
    • Permissions (General) Ability for admin to act as superusers
    • To determine the access privileges of users and to determine the parts of the toolkit they have access to (e.g. simple text or full formatting tools etc.)
    • Restrict the collections they have access to
    • Restrict how widely they can share (/)
    • Sharing levels of permissions? To share things – default is project defined and levels start with the owner then named people, then organisational units then whole organisation.
    • Onion ring metaphor for sharing in the system is useful
  • Make clipper standout from competitors
  • Clipper on the local network – simple but effective?
  • Upload slides to display in synch with a video
  • Bookmarklet in browsers for adding video to their existing user clipper collections?
  • Integration with Kaltura? And similar systems – be good to try with Phase 3 scenario have had an enquiry from a University
  • Legal Issues
    • Need an option to have attribution credits and legal statement at start of each clip
    • Annotations attribution credits and legal statement
    • Project attribution credits and legal statement
    • Option for project / Clip IPR audit statement (could be made mandatory?) where the users authors enters the ownership and rights status of the project / clip (NB this would be good to have as much automatic entry as possible from settings pre-entered by the system, the author and the admin)
    • Embargo options on revealing projects / clips / annotations (timed settings) to their pre-determined level of sharing in the system.
    • There are a range of other legal issues to consider beyond copyright (as in any digital media) such as privacy / data protection / confidentiality clauses / know how / patents / etc. would be good to be able to record them somehow
  • Editing the Project name and description needs to be more intuitive
  • The active resource / clip needs to be highlighted in the list to the left
  • Will annotations pop up when you reach them?
  • If you wanted to annotate a whole video would you have the option to do that as one clip

Table Feedback and Facilitator notes

Policy Implications for service development

  • Not just platform related issues – we need to fit into Institutional Policy and Practice
  • A range of access management needs from just me to the whole world and points in between (onion skin metaphor)
  • Capture and represent the intentions of the authors in respect to copyright, sharing and access and provide means for users to communicate and follow up with authors / creators.
  • Usage should be / is covered by existing institutional policy – really? How would we know? It’s not my job!…implications?
  • Should highlight copyright statements from sources included in a very clear way

Technical Suggestions

  • It is important that there exists a clear and detailed document / metadata/ data model structure (that acts as a foundation for future extensions etc.)
  • Search options should be deep and full text with filters
  • Access privileges should be controllable to fine levels of clip and annotation

Service Development Implications

  • Set embargoes on:
    • Metadata
    • Annotations
  • Need access controls and privacy levels down to annotations not just to clips
  • Need to highlight (to service providers) the importance of permanence in relation to URIs and URLs and permalinks and persistence generally
  • Could clipper be integrated with Office 365 for deployment in the cloud for institutions and with individual usage with access to CDN style facilities for upload and transcoding and sharing etc.? This might satisfy the needs of many individual researchers?
  • Using annotations as surrogate access to inaccessible archive resources

Data Management Issues (RDM)

  • Sensitive   Privacy issues affecting storage and access
  • Retention policy also needs to reflect funding agreements and content
  • Permissions and access control:
    • Single sign on can help by enabling levels of access / control
    • Need access to videos / audio to be set by these controls
    • Password protections (?)
    • Encryption of data as an option (?)
  • Creative Commons – no modifications – would Clipper infringe this?
  • Ownership & Rights etc.: / Original researchers / Producers / Contractors / Contributors / Subjects etc. / Institutional / Funding Body
  • Usage of Data controlled by requirements of funders and institutional policy
  • The different ways the researcher wants to categorise things

Post-It points

Annotations

  • Annotation start and end timestamps
  • Annotation version control
  • Links between annotations (and other clipper items?)
  • Annotate specific points in a frame
  • Pop up and or info symbol to remind you to set the time of the annotation then save
  • Click into toggled annotation (straight to clip section)
  • HTML / rich text editor for annotations (and descriptions? Of clips / cliplists / projects)
  • Annotations should be readable by screen readers

Interface issues

  • Stages need to be more intuitive – need detail / prompt of where to go next
  • User needs to get feedback when they have made a change completed an action
  • Add drag / nudge / slider controls for in and out points
  • Be able to include transitions
  • Be able to include slides for titles and rights etc.
  • Be able to cite clips
  • Have title screen options for clips and Cliplists have slides for citations?
  • Feedback? – See the comments discussions above
  • User feedback – e.g. the video had been added to project resources
  • User feedback – save clip – confirmations
  • If one of the clips in the cliplist needs a login the user / consumer should be alerted to this at the start or before (padlock symbol? – with number to represent the number of locked clips)
  • Transitions between clips – authors should have a choice of options
  • Simplicity is key
  • Ability to drag and drop annotations would be great
  • Have a bookmark / Clipper / button plugin in the browser
  • Jquery – adding media on a bookmaked page to the Clipper resources / project
  • Allow user to upload slides and display them next to the video – possible integration with slideshare? Etc.
  • Should leave transition choices to end-user?
    • Is this something Final Cut Pro could help, in terms of approach?
  • Can you reorder the clips?
  • You might also want to include icons for locally hosted items – so that the playlist creator knows what can or cannot be seen by others (who likely won’t be able to access a file on a local machine or local network).
  • General comment –Web based service is a real advantage. Not many options, nothing to download, that is important. Capitalise on that… At the moment it looks more complex than it is. Has to not just be simple, but also look simple and user friendly.
  • I was wondering about nudging start and stop points…with ability to set time manually by typing
  • I think you will need real usability testing to watch people using the tool, rather than asking them… And that will highlight where there is any misunderstanding. When I chose a video for a collection. How do I do anything creative with those clips… To merge or play all etc…
  • Maybe you’d edit down elsewhere… Something to do with the content I have.
  • From a users point of view you need confirmations on screen to highlight things have been created, saved, etc. For creating a clip, start and end, I didn’t get any visual confirmation. Need that to make it clear.
  • It would be helpful to have maybe a pop up, or information symbol to remind you to cut off the clip. Thinking about the likely users here. Would be useful to have reminders.
  • That issue of annotations also raises the issue of what the playback experience is. And how annotations etc. are part of that…

Access Control and Security and Rights

  • Non public videos and clips etc. need to be protected – use Single Sign On (SSO) to set and determine access control / permissions / tracking
  • Multiple copyrights compliant requirements / options
  • On adding content:
    • Form for who owns copyrights
    • Form for permissions / licence
    • Editable field for disclaimers
  • Coping with / representing different rights holders (sometimes in the same institution)
  • What happens if you have a clip on a password protected Vimeo, etc.
    • But you would want students to be able to login, perhaps
  • All the moving image content on our site is only licensed for one site… Would this sit on the organisations site? Where is it going?
  • What if you have a video that specifies only the servers/IPs that can be used – which you can do on Vimeo – how would that work with Vimeo?
  • Can you display rights information here – they should be available in metadata with video and/or APIs and are really important to indicate that.
  • US vs. UK copyright, particularly thinking about Fair Use content which might be legally acceptable in the US, but not in the UK.
    • Related to usage in a way that level of usage, and so that issue would be a great problem to have though!
  • A slide for the beginning or the end with credits etc. generated in the system would be useful. Would help with rights information.

Data management

  • Delete annotations / clips / cliplists
  • Show store input URIs
  • Create Tags / Categories
  • Searchable annotations would be really useful. And find all the relevant annotations and tags. Things like NVivo do that.
  • Clipper is potentially useful for annotating v large files –so should work on a local high speed network
  • Is there a way to separate out audio and video to save to different channels… So that you can strip down to just the audio… Maybe you just want to capture that.
    • Could be done server side but easiest is to just use the player to hide the video
  • What about a web resource becomes available… And disappears… Hyperlinks can disappear and that would be a concern when I come to share it… And when I invest that time. And it’s quite likely… If a web link is dead, it’s a problem.
    • Not about trust, but fragility of web links…
    • I think that notifications (of broken links – by Clipper) would be useful here. But maybe also something that can be cached or kept so there is a capture of that.
    • Check out the work of Herbert von Sompel in relation to overcoming broken links in academic communications – the Hiberlink project
    • Notifications would be really important (to let authors know of a link going down).
  • You are pulling things through from websites elsewhere. If you make your own interview, can you upload it here? Or do you upload elsewhere and pull in URL?
  • My question is a bit different… Maybe how the clip is created… There are so many people who share clips and compilations of video items…
  • The ability to compile / print a cliplist with video stored in the list is a requirement for some people
  • How do you publish this content? Do you share the playlist? Do you need a Clipper account to view it?
  • If it’s research data a lot of this will be sensitive, and have to be within your control and your own students…
  • We do use some cloud-based services for student data though, so there must be some possibility there.
  • Duration of storage – Some for long-term, some quite short.
  • Some funders will have requirements too. But we were also talking about non-public video content… Maybe need two systems with permissions lined up… Asking students to sign in twice can be confusing. Institutional single sign on might be useful – map permissions across. But can the system recognise right to access data.
  • My students have access to very private recordings that have to be secure and have to be retained in that way, and keep it secure.
  • A question really: if it is someone else’s data and shared under CC licence (ND) – do clipper clips count as modifications or not?
    • About how that is presented?
  • Although not the totality of data, it’s usually what supports publications. But open access aspect is certainly important. Clipper could find its way into that kind of environment and could be a good tool to show off some of your research data.

Policy

  • How much do you need to worry about, how much is for institutions to worry about? Like data ownership etc. But you may need to worry about as a platform.
  • And for access you’d want a lot of granularity of who might access these things, might be a large group or public, or might just be you, or just be a small group.
  • Having users fill in a field where they can state what they think the copyright is.
    • A statement of intent / knowledge?
    • Yes, something that allows you to have a comeback if a collections owner comes back…
  • Policy implications wise, there aren’t really any cases that shouldn’t already be covered by institutional policies (?). Licenses, derivative works, etc. should already by covered by institutional policies. Maybe some special cases…
  • Are policies fit for purpose?
    • It is usually awareness not existence of policies (?)
  • Possibly a pop up indicating license and appropriate usage, so you know what you can do. Second aspect, if you can legally modify videos – why not do that on desktop system offline, if not then how can this comply. Only the making of copies that this removes the issue for. Sorry for a super defeatist comment but how does this differ from what else is there?
  • I come at this from two places… Both the way into the lumpy a/v content, interrogate, search it, etc.… And then also this more creative tool where you make something else available on the internet – alarm bells start ringing. For the creative side, why not use iMovie etc.
    • This is a frequent comment – we want to stay away from ‘printing’ video but a Clipper cliplist could be used to create a an EDL (Edit Decision List) that could be imported into an editing tool and used to ‘print’ a Cliplist?
  • It’s not a video editing tool, it’s annotation. So clearly not that…
  • For digital preservation… preserving video is relatively difficult and is an ongoing process. Clips are basically JSON descriptions – easy to preserve.
  • Check out the Dedoose academic tagging tool
  • A very good content tool. But I think being very clear on what this thing is for… And making it really good for these things. Really focusing on the annotations and textual aspects more.

Service Development Implications

  • Embargoes, on metadata, and issues of privacy, access, and license for annotations for the same reasons.
  • What about bandwidth?
    • It depends on the video delivery…
    • It’s not your issue really. It’s for content providers…
  • The system depends on you having a consistent URI for a playable version of a video… That may be an issue depending on how files are held.
  • Cloud providers?
    • Several in the room indicate they are using them…
  • Making (some?) annotations (and metadata?) public will help others find your data.
  • Costs wise it needs to be open source for people to import themselves? And if so, how can you skin it and brand it. And how often does it need maintenance and updates.

Search

  • Searchable tags etc. – perhaps use of hash tags in annotations
  • Tagging etc. and putting things into categories

Sustainability / Support

  • org for support….?
  • Identify things that could make Clipper stand out fro the ‘competitions’
  • Keep it simple
  • Avoid complexity
  • Focus on annotations

Technical

  • Is there documentation for the code so far?
    • Not yet
  • API for Clipper? So others can use the annotations etc.
  • If sensitive data, and videos, then annotations might also want to be private… Rather than being on your server..(raises the possibility of a local version of Clipper – either in the institution or for an individual – integration with MS Azure?)
  • Or could they get a private instance from you?
  • We haven’t talked much about searching capabilities.
  • I think for effective searching you are going to want to have a more complex annotation data structure – so you can do filters, indexing etc. so less computationally taxing and more accurate for users.
  • Does the system log who has created which annotation? So you can track who does what on a research project.