On 8/1/09 12:09, "Frankie Roberto" <fran...@frankieroberto.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Michael Smethurst wrote:
>
>> you're not wrong. we do do a fair bit of user testing around this stuff and
>> attempt to match what we model to audience mental models. it's not always
>> easy tho. we also need to consider how programmes are grouped outside of web
>> pages - eg series record on pvr, podcasts etc. for all your examples below
>> consider what happens when u press series record - what do you expect to be
>> recorded?
>
> Sounds good. I hadn't thought about the series record button. (It's only
> recently been added to Freeview, or at least my PVR has only recently been
> updated to use it - it's so so useful, I used to have to set up recording
> times based upon search strings, so thanks to whoever got that to work.)
>
> it is very sweet. It¹s also handy to have to get your mind away from web pages
> and get a different perspective for modelling
>
>>> > Part of the problem is that it can all be so complicated, and there are
>>> tons of edge cases!
>>
>> more edge cases than not. knowing when to stop modelling is the tricky part
>
> Indeed, and if the [relative] success of microformats vs Semantic Web has
> taught us anything, it's that simple can be better.
>
> cough
>
>>> > What's the relationship between Doctor Who and Doctor Who Confidential?
>>> They are different programmes, but very closely related (part of the same
>>> brand, but also a 1:1 relationship between individual episodes).
>>
>> we'd say they're 2 different brands grouped by a franchise. series record dr
>> who and u don't get DWC! so far we haven't modelled episode > episode
>> relationships (episode <depictsMakingOf> episode) but franchises (horrible
>> word but the best we could come up with) are coming soon
>
> Sounds good from a modelling perspective, pity the language is a bit
> counter-intuitive. For me, 'Doctor Who' is the brand, DW/DWC/etc are the
> 'shows', and the individual programmes are 'episodes'. But I guess it doesn't
> matter too much. Interesting question is whether Torchwood/Sarah Jane
> Adventures fits within the Doctor Who 'franchise', or is linked in some other
> way (Freebase has the concept of 'fictional universes' which I quite like).
>
> isn¹t it more about modelling writers, storylines and fictional characters.
> Imagine a pvr that you could set to only record programmes featuring the
> character Sarah Jane Smith (whether dr who or SJA)? Probably quite a way off
> tho
>
>
>
>>> > How about the Doctor Who Christmas specials? Which series do they fit
>>> into, the beginning of a new series or the end of the last one? Or are they
>>> their own 1-part series?
>>
>> they belong directly to the doctor who brand. ie they're not in any series.
>> pips supports a mixed content model so a brand can have a combination of
>> child series and child episodes
>
> Nice. Although it'd be good if you could capture the chronology in some way
> (the fact that the such-and-such Christmas special fell between series 2 and
> 3). You could rely on the first broadcast date as a workaround though, I
> guess.
>
> ordinality is stored where known (ie for recent programmes see our previous
> conversations on get satisfaction about episode guides around exactly this).
> So we can say this episode sat between series 2 and series 3
>
>>> > What about the Doctor Who Children in Need Special (apologies for all the
>>> Doctor Who examples) - should they fit under both the Doctor Who and
>>> Children in Need brands, or just one or the other?
>>
>> NEVER mention CIN around BBC data modellers. it makes them whimper
>
> Heh. The show-within-a-show problem that Children in Need presents crops up
> more often than you might imagine.
>
> Trust me every one of them is on a whiteboard somewhere around here
>
> I think kids tv shows, Comic Relief, and maybe T4 (?) and the old Big
> Breakfast show all do it. It always frustrates me when the TV listings have
> one big long show down in the schedule, but I only really wanted to watch a
> show within it.
>
> programmes within programmes are everywhere. Even thought for the day kinda
> fits the definition. The trouble with CIN and CR is the episodes are specially
> commissioned as part of the campaign. The CIN dr who doesn¹t fit into the
> narrative arc of dr who proper. It¹s both CIN and DW but it¹s MORE CIN than
> DW. Press series record on DW within CIN and what gets recorded?
>
>
>
>
>> All of these changes will also be make to the programmes ontology very soon
>> http://purl.org/ontology/po/
>
> Look forward to it. Any chance of making the document a bit easier to
> understand whilst you're at it? (I had to read it half a dozen times before I
> understood, and even now I'm not 100%). Some concrete examples of shows would
> be a help for starters. I think half the problem with the Semantic Web is that
> it's so damn difficult for people to understand (even web developers...).
>
> The new version should be a little cleaner. Possibly best to look at the rdf
> on /programmes for examples
>
> Have you thought much about how it applies to radio btw? The structure of
> radio shows seems to be quite different from TV.
>
> We work in radio and music so yes. It¹s not SO different
>
> One pet bugbear of mine is the way that 'stand-in' presenters are dealt with.
> It might be presenter A's usual slot in the schedule, but if presenter B is
> filling in, then it's really presenter B's show. Yet within listings and the
> now/next data it's treated as if it was still presenter A's show. You even get
> the madness of presenter B telling listeners to e-mail in by sending to
> presenter A's e-mail address! (This problem is the reason why my Radio Pop
> profile shows me as having listened to quite a few of George Lamb's shows - in
> reality I was listening to his [much better] fill-ins).
>
> Stand in presenters are a nightmare. Trying to get radio production people to
> disentangle the programme from the presenter when they share the same name is
> difficult. You sometimes end up with the guest presenter¹s photo sat alongside
> the usual presenter¹s name cos that¹s the name of the programme. We are trying
> to figure out ways of fixing this and properly modelling presenters etc.
>
>>
>
>
>
