[
http://opencast.jira.com/browse/MH-6910?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=31264#comment-31264
]
Rubén Pérez Vázquez commented on MH-6910:
-----------------------------------------
Olaf,
I humbly have to disagree. Perhaps my description was more (or too) detailed,
but when I said "low-level" I meant that your description includes
implementation details (metadata files). I was starting from the premise that
the system administrator (meaning the person who administers Matterhorn at an
application level, the "operator", if you like) doesn't know (nor wants to
know) nothing about XML files, Dublin Core or the likes.
That is the case we have here in Vigo: the people uploading and cataloging the
videos in the system (now Matterhorn, PuMuKIT before) know about the
interfaces, and about high-level concepts such as videos (as a resource that
you can publish), series (as a set of related videos), and the metadata for
them are those fields in the system UI that they have to fill in order to
specify the presenter appearing in the video, the location where it was
recorded, the course which is a part of or the department it belongs to. They
do not care about how that data is stored, or the format of the files storing
it. Saying "this info is stored here and there in this and that file and using
this and that format" is what I consider "low-level" here.
On the other hand, you can attain the same functions (re-use already entered
metadata) by using terms that appear in the UI: re-using metadata from other
scheduled class is the same as "Create a new episode/recording/video [we
certainly have to unify our naming conventions here] from a existing one" or
"New series from a existing one".
I think this a similar discussion than the one that occurred some time ago
where some people argued whether "workflow" is a concept that an operator
should be aware of, and to what extent. I.e. "do operators need to be aware of
all the details, of all that lies beneath the interface?". Similarly, does an
operator need to be aware of the format used internally to represent the
metadata? Even more, does he/she even need to be able to produce valid metadata
files in that format?
I'm glad that you brought this up and I think that it's a great and very
necessary feature. I just think that it's not explained in the correct terms,
and I hope that the subtasks it generates will separate clearly the "model"
concepts (the metadata files) from the "view" concepts (the UI considerations).
As (almost) always, sorry for the long rant.
Regards
> As an administrator, I want to see and manage (sort, order, search) all the
> DC metadata files so I can re-use them for either adjustments or re-use
> (metadata templates)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MH-6910
> URL: http://opencast.jira.com/browse/MH-6910
> Project: Matterhorn Project
> Issue Type: Story Card
> Components: Architecture & Services
> Affects Versions: 1.2
> Reporter: Olaf A. Schulte
> Assignee: Christoph E. Driessen
> Fix For: Trunk
>
>
> In order to facilitate the allocation of metadata, the admin should have
> access to all the episode and series metadata files so they can be copied,
> enhanced and re-used. As most events are re-occuring, this should facilitate
> the admins work and make sure metadata are consistent over semesters etc.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
http://opencast.jira.com/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
_______________________________________________
Matterhorn mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn
To unsubscribe please email
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
