DAMS One Year Review - Campus Presentation

324
-1

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
324
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • <number>
  • 2000 – Summer – UMTV looking for video archive solution at NAB
    2000 – Fall – Informix and Ascential 360 viewed as potential asset management tool
    2000 – November UM team site visit to CNN – Eureka – the “indoor plumbing” of rch media asset management
    2001 – Spring – Digital Asset Management defined as a possible infrastructure for the creation, experimentation and management of all asset types, but especially rich, time-based media (audio, video and 3D VR)
    2001 – July – Provost and President’s office authorize VERY limited proof of concept using vendor donated software and development support
    2001 – December 15: Proof of concept based on Virage, Ascential 360, Informix, demonstrated to J. Hilton, L. Rudgers, L. Monts, G. Krenze in Fleming
    2001 – Winter-spring continuing demos until demo system moved to Media Union for storage. Informix purchased by IBM. Ascential fate uncertain
    2002 – Spring-summer: Cross-campus team invited to develop RFP. Nine units participate. RFP issued July 2002. 12 vendors attend RFP info session; 4 respond
    2002 – Fall: Five finalists narrowed to three vendor teams: Bearing-Point (KPMG Consulting)+Documentum; Sun+Artesia; IBM+Ancept. Live demos and hands-on Web test continue to March, 2003
    2003 – March IBM+Ascential team selected for final negotiations unanimously by 8-unit selection team.
    2003 – Spring Identification of “Affiliate” groups to be financial partners in Living Lab
    2003 – July – Hardware and Software install begin in Living Lab
  • Permissions and roles followpre-determined lines emanating fromcorporate policy.
    Roles and permissions may be assigned by a large number of owners.
    Individuals may have many roles.
  • Permissions and roles followpre-determined lines emanating fromcorporate policy.
    Roles and permissions may be assigned by a large number of owners.
    Individuals may have many roles.
  • DAMS One Year Review - Campus Presentation

    1. 1. DAMS James Hilton, Provost’s Office John Williams, Louis E. King, Al McCord, Digital Media Commons, Duderstadt Center Campus Presentation July 30, 2004 Digital Asset Management SystemsUniversity of Michigan
    2. 2. Agenda - Morning Time Item 10:00-10:15 Gather & Opening Remarks 10:15–11:15 Demonstration & Questions 11:15–11:45 Discussion
    3. 3. DAMSIntroductions
    4. 4. http://sitemaker.umich.edu/dams
    5. 5. http://ctools.umich.edu (DAMS tab)
    6. 6. DAMSContext
    7. 7. Explore an infrastructure that will fundamentally change the way we currently use time-based media to a manner similar to our use of text and images today! DAMS Living Lab • Ingest, manage, store and publish digital rich-media assets and their associated metadata. • Streamline the “workflow” required to create new works with digital rich-media assets. • Search, share, edited and repurpose assets in the academic model. • Prepare for future application of campus-wide rights and intellectual property management to existing assets.
    8. 8. Internalization Institutionalization Adoption Trial Use IBM & Stellent DAMS LL Understanding CNN Visit - RFP Awareness Presentations, Exec Contact UMTV & Informix 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Case in Technology Adoption Adoption Commitment
    9. 9. • Create an end-to-end digital asset management system as the “Living Lab” – a working demonstration environment • Identify areas for collaborative research projects around subjects such as digital rights, open standards, and learning technologies. • Support pilot projects • Co-create a marketing and communications program to promote the Lab’s efforts across campus, the higher education community IBM, Stellent, and U of M Partnership
    10. 10. The Trial Use Environment • Context of “IT Commons” • Collaborative model • “Demand pull” versus “provider push” • Cross-unit dialog and discussion • Opportunities • “Buy versus build” dialog • Executive support • RFP for integrated COTS solution • Location for trial use (“DAMS Living Lab”) • Experimental support for units • Firm commitment to experimental model
    11. 11. Academic Projects • Participation by Academic Units (Assessing demand on campus) • LS&A – History of Art, Psychology, English • Business • Dentistry • Pharmacy, Information, Music, News • Faculty focused • Affiliate Supported • Digital Media Commons • Stewardship • Campus Partners – ITCS, ITComm, News Services
    12. 12. Production, Publications, Broadcast Content Collaborative Research Archived Collections Casual Learning & Exploration Course Materials Digital Libraries Departm ental Storage Team W orkspace/Storage Content M gm t. System s Personal Share-folders Production System s Institutional R epositories Collaborative Learning TypesofCollaborationTypesofCollaboration Ad-hoc Sharing ePortfolios Course M gm t. System s Individual Content Owners Institution Individual Browsing Research Portal Development & Content What Space Does DAMS Occupy?
    13. 13. EncodeEncodeEncodeEncode TranscodeTranscodeTranscodeTranscode MetatagMetatagMetatagMetatag ProxiesProxiesProxiesProxies EncryptEncryptEncryptEncrypt StoreStoreStoreStore TrafficTrafficTrafficTraffic File ServeFile ServeFile ServeFile Serve StreamingStreamingStreamingStreaming BroadcastBroadcastBroadcastBroadcast Web Pub.Web Pub.Web Pub.Web Pub. PrintingPrintingPrintingPrinting CD/DVDCD/DVDCD/DVDCD/DVD ViewViewViewView MetadataMetadataMetadataMetadata AccessAccessAccessAccess WorkflowWorkflowWorkflowWorkflow VersionVersionVersionVersion Check in/outCheck in/outCheck in/outCheck in/out DRMDRMDRMDRM EnterpriseEnterprise DataData EnterpriseEnterprise DataData UnitUnitUnitUnit UnitUnitUnitUnit UnitUnitUnitUnit UnitUnitUnitUnit UnitUnitUnitUnit UnitUnitUnitUnit Near-lineNear-lineNear-lineNear-line Near-lineNear-lineNear-lineNear-line Near-lineNear-lineNear-lineNear-line Near-lineNear-lineNear-lineNear-lineOfflineOfflineOfflineOffline OfflineOfflineOfflineOffline OfflineOfflineOfflineOffline AuthoringAuthoring StationsStations AuthoringAuthoring StationsStations MediaMedia AppliancesAppliances MediaMedia AppliancesAppliances RemoteRemote UsersUsers RemoteRemote UsersUsers CampusCampus UsersUsers CampusCampus UsersUsers StudiosStudiosStudiosStudios Producers Collaborators Audience Ingest Store PublishManage CampusCampus BroadcastBroadcast CampusCampus BroadcastBroadcast PrintPrint PublishingPublishing PrintPrint PublishingPublishing SecureSecure WebWeb SecureSecure WebWeb PublicPublic WebWeb PublicPublic WebWeb CampusCampus ServicesServices CampusCampus ServicesServices CourseCourse ManagementManagement CourseCourse ManagementManagement DAMS Component Services
    14. 14. DAMSDAMS Demonstration
    15. 15. Workflow AMS 3.5 Websphere Content Manager DB2 End User Creates Prime Digital Source The PDS can be an existing file 1 Broadcast Live Tape Analyze Transcode Store Stream DAMS manages ordering services and moving files for analysis, transcoding, storage, and streaming
    16. 16. Prime Digital Source Prime Digital Source DV MPEG2 Offline RT MPEG1 Video Frame Size (pixels x pixels) 720 x 480 720 x 480 320 x 240 352 x 240 Frame Rate (frames/sec) 30 30 30 30 Compression/Codec DV MPEG2 Photo-JPEG MPEG1 Audio Sample Rate (kHz) 48 48 48 44.1 Sample Size (bit) 16 16 16 16 Channels 2 2 2 2 Compression/Codec None None None MPEG Layer 2 Data Rate Video 3.4 MBps 5.7 MBps 275 KBps 1.1 MBps Audio 187 KBps 187 KBps 187 KBps 300 KBps Total (MB/second) 3.6 6 465 KBps 1.5
    17. 17. Popular Derivatives Derivatives (4:3 ratio) High Medium Low QuickTime, Real, Windows Video Frame Size (pixels x pixels) 512x384 320x240 256x192 Frame Rate (frames/sec) 30 15 10 Video Compression/Codec QuickTime MPEG4 MPEG4 MPEG4 Real Real10 Real10 Real10 Windows V9 V9 V9 Audio Sample Rate (kHz) 44 44 22 Sample Size (bit) 16 16 16 Channels 2 1 1 Compression/Codec QuickTime MPEG4 MPEG4 MPEG4 Real Voice Voice Voice Windows V9 V9 V9
    18. 18. AMS 3.5 Overview
    19. 19. Documentary of Faculty Works
    20. 20. Formal Collecting Archivist, Faculty, & Student Roles
    21. 21. Learning Objects
    22. 22. Transcoding - Telestream Flip Factory
    23. 23. Analysis - Virage Video Logger
    24. 24. Administration - Roles & Privileges
    25. 25. DAMSLessons Learned
    26. 26. Neighborhood CentralLocal Lessons Learned - Architecture Live Tape/CD/DVD Internet Appliance Satellite Video Logger Flip Factory (Optional) AMS 3.5 Content Manager DB2 Spinning Disk Spinning Disk Nearline/Offline Backup Tivoli Print Web CD/DVD Media Streaming Real/Win/QT Course Mgmt ePorfolios Personal Storage Capture Ingest Manage Store Publish X X X X
    27. 27. Lessons Learned - Managing Access Control Lists In the commercial sector asset privileges correspond to corporate hierarchy! Easily managed centrally through system defined ACLs In higher education asset privileges are unrelated to the institutional hierarchy! Requires distributed management through User Defined ACLs DecisionMakingDecisionMaking + - . Rights Holders System Admins Affiliates Collaborators Viewers Guests Board of Directors Executive Staff Administrators Customers - Level 1 Customers - Level 2 Customers - Special Regents Executive Staff Faculty Students Staff Friends/Affiliates Privileges Corporate Hierarchy Privileges Institutional Hierarchy Rights Holders System Admins Affiliates Collaborators Viewers Guests
    28. 28. Rights Holders / Creators Licensees Administrators Collaborators Groups Open Access Lessons Learned - More Access Control Lists Needed In the commercial sector, access to media is defined and controlled centrally Dozens of Access Control Lists In higher education, access to media is defined and controlled by end users. 100,000+ Access Control Lists Board of Directors Executive Staff Administrators Customers - Level 1 Customers - Level 2 Customers - Special
    29. 29. Lessons Learned - Metadata • UM Core = Dublin Core + UM Special • Provide structured metadata but allow users to map into fields in unstructured ways (contrary to controlled taxonomies of our libraries) • Allow for multiple metadata schemas to be attached to a single asset (ie Dublin Core, IMS, SCORM, etc.)
    30. 30. Lessons Learned - Interface • Indicators of privileges • Grayed menu items • User defined ACLs • Open source application Assets Show PrivilegesAssets Show Privileges Gray Menu ItemsGray Menu Items
    31. 31. Lessons Learned - Policy • Rights Declaration Copyright issues must be addressed in a systemic way – to start, UMCore metadata schema can support a rights declaration • Digital Rights Management The largest early us of DRM is for distribution of licensed materials. Need to evaluate products that allow keys to be set to control access and expire media after its intended period of use. • Statutory Compliance Managing regulatory issues such as FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Education Act) and HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) must be built in. • User Education & Use Policy Education, training, and support on metadata and file quality will help distribute the work load and maximize the ability to share materials and ensure appropriate use
    32. 32. Near Loomings • User Defined ACLs • Interface development for UD-ACLs • Clip-making functionality • Enterprise environment pilot w/ neighborhood(s) • IP, Copyright, Privacy, Use and Misuse policy • Building a great user experience
    33. 33. Far Loomings • Ongoing interface design to meet project and user requirements (Taking into consideration asset management’s inherently different approach of presenting multiple items, each of which may have a different set of user capabilities associated with it) • Integration with other academic tools (Sakai) or portal • Relationship to Library, Institutional Repository and federated catalogue searching
    34. 34. Bloomings • Possible partnership w/ IBM & Stellent to build a JSR168 compliant DAMS interface to IBMs Content Manager middleware • Leverage extensibility, massive computational power and scheduling of M-Grid to weave together the DAMS service layer – i.e. distributed neighborhoods of media transcoding, analysis, storage, and streaming.
    35. 35. UM DAMS Contacts University of Michigan DAMS Initiative http://sitemaker.umich.edu/dams/ James Hilton hilton@umich.edu Associate Provost for Academic, Information and Instructional Technology Affairs Louis E. King leking@umich.edu Managing Producer, Digital Asset Management Systems Alan McCord, Ph.D amccord@umich.edu Vendor and Institutional Relationships John Merlin Williams jmerlinw@umich.edu Executive Producer, Digital Media Commons
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×