Penn State University Presentation

844 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
844
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 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 follow pre-determined lines emanating from corporate policy. Roles and permissions may be assigned by a large number of owners. Individuals may have many roles.
  • Permissions and roles follow pre-determined lines emanating from corporate policy. Roles and permissions may be assigned by a large number of owners. Individuals may have many roles.
  • Penn State University Presentation

    1. 1. DAMS James Hilton, Provost’s Office John Williams, Louis E. King, Al McCord, Digital Media Commons, Duderstadt Center Penn State University July 14, 2004 Digital Asset Management Systems University of Michigan
    2. 2. Agenda - Morning By Item Time All Working lunch served 12:00-12:30 John DAMS Living Lab defined 11:30-12:00 All Business break 11:00-11:30 Louis Demonstration 10:00-11:00 Al Context 09:30-10:00 James Introductions 09:00-09:30 All Light Breakfast at Duderstadt Center, Suite 1180 08:30-09:00
    3. 3. Agenda - Afternoon By Item Time John Wrap up 03:30-04:00 John Year 2 and beyond 03:00-03:30 All Discussion 02:15-03:00 All Break 02:00-02:15 Louis Lessons Learned 01:00-02:00 John Solution Overview 12:30-01:00
    4. 4. Introductions DAMS
    5. 5. http://sitemaker.umich.edu/dams
    6. 6. Context DAMS
    7. 7. Why DAMS Is Important <ul><li>We are challenged to acquire, index, access, use, and archive “perishable intellectual property” for </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Course delivery (on-campus and DL) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Archives and collections </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research projects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>External communications (Web, Broadcast, and print) </li></ul></ul>?
    8. 8. Why DAMS Is Important <ul><li>Our networks can support digital video payloads </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Students use P2P to manage their personal media assets </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Many isolated repositories on our campuses </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Institutional file systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Library collections </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Course management systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Web content management systems </li></ul></ul><ul><li>BUT </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rich media still absent from most instruction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of large-scale rich media services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Faculty and librarians lack experience / tools for managing rich media </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of rich media workflow tools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of tools to manage IP rights </li></ul></ul>?
    9. 9. Case in Technology Adoption Adoption Commitment 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 Contact Awareness Understanding Trial Use Adoption Institutionalization Internalization
    10. 10. How This Got Started <ul><li>Contact (May 2000) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Via UM Television and Informix </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Awareness </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Internal dialogs, demonstrations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Executive interest </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. How This Got Started <ul><li>Understanding (April 2001) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CNN visit (the “Aha!” moment) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Executive interest and commitment </li></ul></ul>Aha
    12. 12. How This Got Started <ul><li>Early demonstration (Dec 2001) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Informix / Media360 / Virage </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Campus Interest Group </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Opt-in community </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>RFP (May 2002) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decision (April 2003) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>DAMS Initiative (Jul 2003) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Provost/Unit funding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Digital Media Commons “Living Lab” </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. What We’ve Assumed <ul><li>IT Commons approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Campus-wide collaboration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Federal / community / neighborhood approach </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Two-year experimentation and adoption window to create demand-pull shared services </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Open standards </li></ul><ul><li>Campus metadata standards </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure tools for ingestion, cataloging, and retrieval </li></ul><ul><li>Bandwidth and storage to be addressed </li></ul>
    14. 14. The Trial Use Environment <ul><li>Context of “IT Commons” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaborative model </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Demand pull” versus “provider push” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cross-unit dialog and discussion </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Opportunities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Buy versus build” dialog </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Executive support </li></ul><ul><ul><li>RFP for integrated COTS solution </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Location for trial use (“DAMS Living Lab”) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Experimental support for units </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Firm commitment to experimental model </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. DAMS Demonstration DAMS
    16. 16. DAMS Living Lab – Defined DAMS
    17. 17. DAMS Living Lab <ul><li>Ingest, manage, store and publish digital rich-media assets and their associated metadata. </li></ul><ul><li>Streamline the “workflow” required to create new works with digital rich-media assets. </li></ul><ul><li>Search, share, edited and repurpose assets in the academic model. </li></ul><ul><li>Prepare for future application of campus-wide rights and intellectual property management to existing assets. </li></ul>Explore an infrastructure that will lower the barriers preventing us from using time-based media in a manner similar to our use of text and images today!
    18. 18. Sourcing Considerations <ul><li>DAMS as a vehicle to consolidate: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Transcoding and derivative technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Metadata analysis, search and management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integrate with our storage strategy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Investigate Search tools integration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Authentication and access control tools </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Internal Development vs. Commercial off-the-shelf? </li></ul><ul><li>Campus-wide selection team/RFP process </li></ul><ul><li>Living Lab as a development platform and a policy tool </li></ul>
    19. 19. Living Lab <ul><li>Goals </li></ul><ul><li>Proof of concept leading to a rigorous specification for the selected software hardware solution </li></ul><ul><li>Campus “sandbox” for experimentation with academic applications </li></ul><ul><li>Campus-wide participation = community readiness </li></ul><ul><li>Advantage of non-committed state (to campus and vendors) </li></ul><ul><li>Structure </li></ul><ul><li>Hardware and software donated by vendors, integration consulting fee ($210K) </li></ul><ul><li>UM “thin-staffing” = 1.25 FTE support core and Affiliates </li></ul><ul><li>Affiliate-led projects constitute proof of concept </li></ul><ul><li>Affiliates participate in Living Lab support ($20K/yr. typical) </li></ul>
    20. 20. What Space Does DAMS Occupy? Production, Publications, Broadcast Content Collaborative Research Archived Collections Casual Learning & Exploration Course Materials Digital Libraries Departmental Storage Team Workspace/Storage Content Mgmt. Systems Personal Share-folders Production Systems Institutional Repositories Collaborative Learning Types of Collaboration Ad-hoc Sharing ePortfolios Course Mgmt. Systems Individual Content Owners Institution Individual Browsing Research Portal Development & Content
    21. 21. <ul><li>Create an end-to-end digital asset management system as the “Living Lab” – a working demonstration environment </li></ul><ul><li>Identify areas for collaborative research projects around subjects such as digital rights, open standards, and learning technologies. </li></ul><ul><li>Support pilot projects </li></ul><ul><li>Co-create a marketing and communications program to promote the Lab’s efforts across campus, the higher education community </li></ul>IBM, Stellent, and U of M Partnership
    22. 22. Academic Projects <ul><li>Participation by Academic Units (Assessing demand on campus) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>LS&A – History of Art, Psychology, English </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Business </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dentistry </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pharmacy, Information, Music, News </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Faculty focused </li></ul><ul><li>Affiliate Supported </li></ul><ul><li>Digital Media Commons </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Stewardship </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Campus Partners – ITCS, ITComm, News Services </li></ul></ul>
    23. 23. Living Lab Goals <ul><li>Understand compelling academic outcomes </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluate IBM/Stellent solution </li></ul><ul><li>Specify DAMS application, service layer, and technical architecture </li></ul><ul><li>Build community readiness </li></ul>
    24. 24. Solution Overview DAMS
    25. 25. DAMS Component Services View Metadata Access Workflow Version Check in/out DRM Enterprise Data Authoring Stations Media Appliances Remote Users Campus Users Studios Producers Collaborators Audience Ingest Store Publish Manage Campus Broadcast Print Publishing Secure Web Public Web Campus Services Course Management Encode Transcode Metatag Proxies Encrypt Store Traffic File Serve Streaming Broadcast Web Pub. Printing CD/DVD Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Near-line Near-line Near-line Near-line Offline Offline Offline
    26. 26. DAMS Service Layer Applications, Course Management Systems, Production Systems DAMS Institutional and Individual Assets Network Storage Publishing: Teaching, Collaboration, Production, Distribution, Broadcast Authentication & Authorization
    27. 27. Solution Architecture
    28. 28. DAMS Living Lab Software Configuration <ul><li>Local source: </li></ul><ul><li>Tape Deck </li></ul><ul><li>Live Media Stream </li></ul><ul><li>Scanner </li></ul><ul><li>Existing Digital File </li></ul><ul><li>Remote Source: </li></ul><ul><li>Telestream ClipMail Pro </li></ul><ul><li>FTP upload of existing digital file </li></ul>Library Server Resource Manager Ancept Media Server Metadata creation Version control Check-in/out Workflow XML Websphere Tivoli Storage Management Asset Processing Streaming Servers IBM VideoCharger Apple QuickTime 1 TB storage Telestream Flipfactory Transcoding Metadata Extraction Proxy Creation Virage Encoding & Logging Metadata Extraction Speech-to-text Voice, face recognition Remote iSCSI Storage 1TB DB2 SMART Self-Management And Resource Tuning IBM Content Manager Metadata Mngmnt. Resource Management Security Cosign single sign-on
    29. 29. DAMS Living Lab Hardware Configuration <ul><li>Local source: </li></ul><ul><li>Tape Deck </li></ul><ul><li>Live Media Stream </li></ul><ul><li>Scanner </li></ul><ul><li>Existing Digital File </li></ul><ul><li>Remote Source: </li></ul><ul><li>Telestream ClipMail Pro </li></ul><ul><li>FTP upload of existing digital file </li></ul>Library Server Resource Manager Asset Processing Transcode IBM x345 dual 2.67GHz Xeon, 1.5 GB DDR Telestream FlipFactory 440 GB Ultra 320 (10K rpm) SCSI Raid 5i Windows 2000 Server Encode and Log IBM x345 dual 2.67GHz Xeon, 1.5GB DDR 146 GB Ultra 320 (10K rpm) Osprey 560 Video Capture Card Video Logger (Virage) Windows 2000 Server Video Streaming IBM x345 dual 2.67GHz Xeon, 1.5 GB DDR 146 GB Ultra 320 (10K rpm) QuickTime Server IBM Video Charger Windows 2000 Server Device attached storage 1 TB - IBM Ultra 160 (10K rpm) Content Manager 8.0 (DB2, Tivoli, Websphere) Ancept Media Server IBM P645 2-way 1.2GHZ, PWR4+, 8GB 293 GB SCSI U3 (15K rpm) AIX 5.1 Remote iSCSI Storage 1TB IBM Ultra 160 (10K rpm)
    30. 30. DAMS Living Lab UMCE Integration <ul><li>Local source: </li></ul><ul><li>Tape Deck </li></ul><ul><li>Live Media Stream </li></ul><ul><li>Scanner </li></ul><ul><li>Existing Digital File </li></ul><ul><li>Remote Source: </li></ul><ul><li>Telestream ClipMail Pro </li></ul><ul><li>FTP upload of existing digital file </li></ul>Library Server Resource Manager Asset Processing Remote iSCSI Storage 1TB Transcode IBM x345 dual 2.67GHz Xeon, 1.5 GB DDR Telestream FlipFactory 440 GB Ultra 320 (10K rpm) SCSI Raid 5i Windows 2000 Server Encode and Log IBM x345 dual 2.67GHz Xeon, 1.5GB DDR 146 GB Ultra 320 (10K rpm) Osprey 560 Video Capture Card Video Logger (Virage) Windows 2000 Server Video Streaming IBM x345 dual 2.67GHz Xeon, 1.5 GB DDR 146 GB Ultra 320 (10K rpm) QuickTime Server IBM Video Charger Windows 2000 Server Device attached storage 1 TB - IBM Ultra 160 (10K rpm) IBM Ultra 160 (10K rpm) Content Manager 8.0 (DB2, Tivoli, Websphere) Ancept Media Server IBM P645 2-way 1.2GHZ, PWR4+, 8GB 293 GB SCSI U3 (15K rpm) AIX 5.1 SMB SAMBA Cosign ITComm
    31. 31. Lessons Learned DAMS
    32. 32. Lessons Learned - Architecture Neighborhood Central Local 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
    33. 33. Lessons Learned - Workflow <ul><li>Local source: </li></ul><ul><li>Tape Deck </li></ul><ul><li>Live Media Stream </li></ul><ul><li>Scanner </li></ul><ul><li>Existing Digital File </li></ul><ul><li>Remote Source: </li></ul><ul><li>Telestream ClipMail Pro </li></ul><ul><li>FTP upload of existing digital file </li></ul>Library Server Resource Manager Asset Processing Transcode IBM x345 dual 2.67GHz Xeon, 1.5 GB DDR Telestream FlipFactory 440 GB Ultra 320 (10K rpm) SCSI Raid 5i Windows 2000 Server Encode and Log IBM x345 dual 2.67GHz Xeon, 1.5GB DDR 146 GB Ultra 320 (10K rpm) Osprey 560 Video Capture Card Video Logger (Virage) Windows 2000 Server Video Streaming IBM x345 dual 2.67GHz Xeon, 1.5 GB DDR 146 GB Ultra 320 (10K rpm) QuickTime Server IBM Video Charger Windows 2000 Server Device attached storage 1 TB - IBM Ultra 160 (10K rpm) IBM Ultra 160 (10K rpm) Content Manager 8.0 (DB2, Tivoli, Websphere) Ancept Media Server IBM P645 2-way 1.2GHZ, PWR4+, 8GB 293 GB SCSI U3 (15K rpm) AIX 5.1 X Neighborhood Remote iSCSI Storage 1TB
    34. 34. 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 Rights Holders System Admins Affiliates Collaborators Viewers Guests Privileges Corporate Hierarchy Privileges Institutional Hierarchy Rights Holders System Admins Affiliates Collaborators Viewers Guests Decision Making + - . Board of Directors Executive Staff Administrators Customers - Level 1 Customers - Level 2 Customers - Special Regents Executive Staff Faculty Students Staff Friends/Affiliates
    35. 35. 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 Rights Holders / Creators Licensees Administrators Collaborators Groups Open Access Board of Directors Executive Staff Administrators Customers - Level 1 Customers - Level 2 Customers - Special
    36. 36. Lessons Learned - Metadata <ul><li>UM Core = Dublin Core + UM Special </li></ul><ul><li>Provide structured metadata but allow users to map into fields in unstructured ways (contrary to controlled taxonomies of our libraries) </li></ul><ul><li>Allow for multiple metadata schemas to be attached to a single asset (ie Dublin Core, IMS, SCORM, etc.) </li></ul>
    37. 37. Lessons Learned - Interface <ul><li>Indicators of privileges </li></ul><ul><li>Grayed menu items </li></ul><ul><li>User defined ACLs </li></ul><ul><li>Open source application </li></ul>Assets Show Privileges Gray Menu Items
    38. 38. Lessons Learned - Policy <ul><li>Rights Declaration Copyright issues must be addressed in a systemic way – to start, UMCore metadata schema can support a rights declaration </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul>
    39. 39. Near Loomings <ul><li>User Defined ACLs </li></ul><ul><li>Interface development for UD-ACLs </li></ul><ul><li>Clip-making functionality </li></ul><ul><li>Enterprise environment pilot w/ neighborhood(s) </li></ul><ul><li>IP, Copyright, Privacy, Use and Misuse policy </li></ul><ul><li>Building a great user experience </li></ul>
    40. 40. Far Loomings <ul><li>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) </li></ul><ul><li>Integration with other academic tools ( Sakai ) or portal </li></ul><ul><li>Relationship to Library, Institutional Repository and federated catalogue searching </li></ul>
    41. 41. Bloomings <ul><li>Possible partnership w/ IBM to build a JSR168 compliant DAMS interface to IBMs Content Manager Middleware </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>
    42. 42. UM DAMS Contacts University of Michigan DAMS Initiative http://sitemaker.umich.edu/dams/ James Hilton [email_address] Associate Provost for Academic, Information and Instructional Technology Affairs Louis E. King [email_address] Managing Producer, Digital Asset Management Systems Alan McCord, Ph.D [email_address] Vendor and Institutional Relationships John Merlin Williams [email_address] Executive Producer, Digital Media Commons

    ×