Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report

201

Published on

ECLAP social network for performing arts, providing services for education and digital libraries with more than 120.000 content objects. …

ECLAP social network for performing arts, providing services for education and digital libraries with more than 120.000 content objects.
ECLAP provides services and tools for automated content ingestion, adaptation, metadata ingestion and editing, semantic information extraction, indexing and distribution by exploiting the most innovative and consolidated technologies with the aim of providing high quality content to Europeana and make them accessible to content provider for their users in the area of education, research, and entertainment.
In this document the current ECLAP Overall Scenario is described focussing on the lice-cycle (workflow) of ECLAP content (content ingestion, content management). The solution takes into account metadata and IPR model, the ECLAP workflow services and tools defined to manage them both manually by users and automatically by the back-office. All this refers to the three main areas of the ECLAP architecture for content and metadata management and the corresponding developed services and tools (Metadata Ingestion Server, ACXP back office services and ECLAP front-office tools available on the ECLAP Portal). In this report is also detailed the IPR Wizard tool and the IPR Logic Model adopted to guide the Content Providers on creating an IPR Models and on making the association <ipr>. This tool has been realized to simplify and make systematic and standard the work of the IPR Managers of each CP.

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
201
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. DE6.1.3 - V ECLAP projec EVersion: 0Date: 29/0Project TitProject NuDeliverablDeliverablWork-PackNature of tStatus: finaContractuaApprove foFinally appActual DatDocumentEmail addrAffiliationAuthors: IvaValidation anctUROPAValid0.405/2013tle: ECLAPumber: ICT-e Number:e Type: pubkage contribthe Deliveraal, closedal Date of Dor quality coproved by cte of Deliveresponsablress: ivanb@acronym: Dan Bruno (Dnd service opPEANARTISdation-PSP-25048DE2.2.1blicbuting to theable: documDelivery: 31/ontrol by: 1coordinator:ery: 29/05/2e: Ivan Bru@dsi.unifi.itDSI DINFODSI)ptimisation- EN COLSTIC PwwwGrant AgDn and1e Deliverabment/04/20135/05/201329/05/2013013notO DISITECLLECTPERFw.ECLAgreement NDE6.1servible: WP23LAPTED LFORMAP.euNo 250481.3ice opLIBRAMANCEptimisARY OEsation1OF1 
  • 2. DE6.1.3 - V ECLAP projec  Pie MicRevisiondelegated tRevisionV 0.1V 0.2V 0.3V 0.4StatemeThis delivAcknowledappropriateCatalogTitleIdentifier.deIdentifier.ISCreatorsSubjectDescriptionKeywordsPublisherDateFormatTypeLanguageCitationAuthor(s) nunivocally dECLAPthe  documNoDerivs 3.attribution http://creatValidation ancterfrancesco Bchela Paolun History:to someonen D0222ent of orerable contgement of pcitation, quogue:Validae DE6.1.SBNIvan BrContenUpdateproceduMetadaLibrariECLAP28/05/2DocumDOCENn Guidelname Surnamdetermined oP Copyrient  is  Publi.0 Unportedis  giventivecommon nd service opBellini (DSucci (DSI): (only forelse)Date05/05/201327/05/201328/05/201329-5-2013riginalitytains originpreviously potation or boation and serv.3runo, Pierfrannt and Metadae version ofuresata, Workingies, Tools, IPRP2013mentlinesme, Deliveron http://wwwight Notic,  it  availab.  This licensn.  For  mns.org/licenseptimisationSI)versions apAuthorIvan BruIvanPaolucciIvan BruPaolo Ney:nal unpublispublished math.vice optimisatncesco Bellini,ta processingcontent andgroup, Best PRrable numbew.eclap.euiceble  under  the permits nomore  infoes/by‐nc‐nd/pproved byrunoBruno/Miciunoesished workaterial and otion, Michela Paoand semantifid metadata pPractice Netwer, Deliverabhe  Creative  Con‐commercormation  o/3.0/ the documeOrgDSIchela DSIDSIDSIexcept whof the workolucciicationprocessing anwork, Performble title, ECCommons  licial sharing aon  this ent coordinaganizationhere clearlyof others hd semantificaming Arts, EdCLAP Projecense:  Attriand remixinglicense,  yator or if thn DescrDE SetDE updDE FinApprovclosurey indicatedhas been maation, functioducation, Traiect, DD/MMbution‐NonCg of this woryou  can 2his action isriptiont updatenalizationval andeotherwise.ade throughonalities andning, DigitalM/YY, URL:Commercial‐k, so long asvisit    ,2 s:‐s , 
  • 3. DE6.1.3 - Validation and service optimisation 3 ECLAP project Please note that: You can become affiliated with ECLAP. This will give you access to a great amount of knowledge,information related to ECLAP services, content and tools. If you are interested please contact ECLAPcoordinator Paolo Nesi at info@eclap.eu. Once affiliated with ECLAP you will have the possibility ofusing the ECLAP for your organisation. You can contribute to the improvement of ECLAP by sending your contribution to ECLAP coordinatorPaolo Nesi at info@ECLAP.eu You can attend ECLAP meetings that are open to public, for additional information see www.eclap.eu orcontact ECLAP coordinator Paolo Nesi at info@eclap.eu
  • 4. DE6.1.3 - Validation and service optimisation 4 ECLAP project Table of Contents1  Executive Summary and Report Scope ...................................................................................................... 6 2  ECLAP Overall Scenario .............................................................................................................................. 7 3  ECLAP Workflow, Content and Metadata Management ............................................................................. 9 3.1  ECLAP Back‐Office Services ................................................................................................................ 9 3.2  ECLAP Front office tools .................................................................................................................. 10 3.3  ECLAP Workflow Model ................................................................................................................... 10 4  ECLAP IPR Management .......................................................................................................................... 11 4.1  Content Providers and Rights .......................................................................................................... 11 4.2  IPR Models Definition ...................................................................................................................... 12 4.3  Application of IPR Models ............................................................................................................... 12 4.4  Association of IPR Models at Ingestion Time .................................................................................. 12 4.5  IPR Models Additional Conditions .................................................................................................. 12 5  IPR Wizard Tool ....................................................................................................................................... 13 5.1  Relationships among user roles ....................................................................................................... 13 5.2  Relationships among permissions ................................................................................................... 13 5.3  The Wizard Tool ............................................................................................................................... 14 6  ECLAP Workflow Validation Report ......................................................................................................... 15 6.1  Workflow Users ............................................................................................................................... 15 6.2  Workflow Transitions ...................................................................................................................... 15 7  Workflow Tools Usage ............................................................................................................................. 17 7.1  Back‐office services ......................................................................................................................... 17 7.1.1  Content and Metadata Ingestion ................................................................................................ 17 7.1.2  Metadata Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 17 7.1.3  Metadata Validation .................................................................................................................... 18 7.1.4  Content Publication ..................................................................................................................... 19 7.2  Front‐office tools ............................................................................................................................. 20 7.2.1  Web Page Upload ........................................................................................................................ 20 7.2.2  Metadata Editor: Enrichment Mode & Validation Mode ............................................................ 20 7.2.3  IPR Wizard Usage ......................................................................................................................... 22 7.2.4  IPR Models Used .......................................................................................................................... 24 7.2.5  Content Management Tool ......................................................................................................... 26 8  References ............................................................................................................................................... 28 
  • 5. DE6.1.3 - Validation and service optimisation 5 ECLAP project Table of FiguresFigure 1 ‐ ECLAP Overall Scenario ...................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2 ‐ ECLAP Permissions ............................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 3 ‐ ECLAP Back Office and Portal architecture ....................................................................................... 9 Figure 4 ‐ ECLAP Workflow diagram ................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 6 ‐ Relationships among user roles. ..................................................................................................... 13 Figure 7 ‐ IPR permissions relations on Audio content ................................................................................... 14 Figure 8 ‐ IPR Wizard: audio sample. ............................................................................................................... 14 Figure 9 ‐ Chart of workflow transitions per month ........................................................................................ 16 Figure 10 – Chart of Back Office Metadata Analysis by month ....................................................................... 18 Figure 11 ‐ Chart of BackOffice Metadata Validation ...................................................................................... 19 Figure 12 ‐ Chart of BackOffice Content Publication ....................................................................................... 20 
  • 6. DE6.1.3 - Validation and service optimisation 6 ECLAP project 1 Executive Summary and Report ScopeECLAP provides services and tools for automated content ingestion, adaptation, metadata ingestion andediting, semantic information extraction, indexing and distribution by exploiting the most innovative andconsolidated technologies with the aim of providing high quality content to Europeana and make themaccessible to content provider for their users in the area of education, research, and entertainment.In this document the current ECLAP Overall Scenario is described focussing on the lice-cycle (workflow) ofECLAP content (content ingestion, content management). The solution takes into account metadata and IPRmodel, the ECLAP workflow services and tools defined to manage them both manually by users andautomatically by the back-office. All this refers to the three main areas of the ECLAP architecture forcontent and metadata management and the corresponding developed services and tools (Metadata IngestionServer, ACXP back office services and ECLAP front-office tools available on the ECLAP Portal). In thisreport is also detailed the IPR Wizard tool and the IPR Logic Model adopted to guide the Content Providerson creating an IPR Models and on making the association <IPR Model; content>. This tool has been realizedto simplify and make systematic and standard the work of the IPR Managers of each CP.According to ECLAP workflow, the content ingestion starts taking metadata and content files from any kindof archive and/or database or by providing them via FTP and/or web based utilities. Once the metadata areaingested, an intelligent content processing back office is capable of collecting and automatically repurposingcontent for distribution via pc and mobiles, coping with more than 500 digital file formats. The contentuploaded/ingested is initially accepted and made available on the ECLAP BPN front end with a set ofrestrictions and the obtained metadata sets are sent to Europeana only after that the metadata have beenenriched and linked to a reachable digital resource and when the IPR issues have been correctly defined withthe needed quality level.The ECLAP metadata enrichment activities can be performed by humans via suitable interface and tools orautomatically performed by using a freeware AXCP media grid used as back office to run automatedprocedures as services (the automation parts are scripted). The typical metadata enrichments performed byECLAP can be the addition of technical descriptors of source files, indexing, vip names extractors, theaddition of more languages, the geo localization passing from location named into metadata and descriptorsto formal GPS position, the production of QR codes for museum inspection and linkage (see it as augmentedreality first step), the content aggregation, the addition of comments and tags, the association of taxonomicalclassification and so on. Nevertheless, enrichment activity could be performed by ECLAP user by usingMetadata editor available as front-office tool.The IPR management and the assignment of access restrictions is a way to enable the increment of possibleavailable content on the internet. Permissions as IPR models can be enforced on content by each ECLAPinstitution (content owner), by using the IPR Wizard tool. An ECLAP IPR Model can be associated witheach single content or collection. The IPR model has been derived from the work performed on MPEG-21standard taking into account the ontologies and relationships among different content distribution and accessrights. This means that access rules are imposed to restrict and regulate the content access taking intoaccount: content format (video, audio, document, etc.), actions/rights (play, download, stream, embed, etc.),device (PC, mobile, mobile application), users’ type (private, public, educational, etc.), location (nationality,university...), resolution (HD, high quality, medium, low, etc.). This model for content distribution with IPRmanagement is associated with a strong legal model as Terms of Use and privacy policy (see them on theportal).
  • 7. DE6.1.3 - V ECLAP projec Finally, witanalysis ofconducted tand results aThe usage a2013. It unmatch the Ethe front ofWizard andof the contethe 1% of cEuropeanahuge effortwhole set oinstitutions.The documContent ProSection 3 dmanagemenapplication,Section 6 revaluating t2 ECLIn order toOverall Scecontent on EValidation anctth the aim off workflow ato validate thand numbersanalysis putnderlines thatEuropeana reffice side, thd the Contentent versus Euontent has beconstrainedhas been keof more tha.ment is organoviders follodescribes mnt. Section 4, associationreports the Ethe usage ofLAP Overalbetter underenario in termECLAP andnd service opf providing thactivities pehe use of servs.in evidencet the huge aequirements he most usedt Managemenuropeana. Meen correctedthe content pept under coan 120.000 dnized as folloowed to pubore in detai4 provides tn and managECLAP wortools duringll Scenariorstand the coms of workflthen provideptimisationhe evidence orformed onvices and toothe whole acactivity on cohas been matools by cont since theyMost of the md from that pprovider to antrol by expdifferent conowing. Sectiblish their coil the ECLAthe descriptigement. Therkflow validathe ECLAPontent and mow, rules, pre it to EuropeFigure 1 ‐of the perforthe contentols involvedctivities of Eontent and mainly automatontent providy allow usersmetadata provpoint of viewassociate toploiting the Intent comingion 2 providontents on EAP workflowion about the descriptionation activitproject.metadata manrocedures, eteana (Figure‐ ECLAP Overalrmed validatit, metadatain the lice-cyECLAP on cometadata aggted and perfoders have beeto finalise thvided were aw. On the oththe 100% ofIPR Model,g from mordes an overvECLAP andw and toolshe ECLAPn of IPR Wty and analynagement, ittc., that each1.).l Scenarioion and usagand IPR unycle of ECLAontent, metagregation, anormed by theen associatedhe rights andlready in a ger hand, thef the contentand applyinge than 35 dview of workthen on Eurused in theIPR underliizard tool isysis that allois useful toContent Proge, this reportntil May 201AP content aadata and IPRnalysis and ve back-officed with IPR,d to provide agood shape aIPR details rt a new IPRg only 67 mdifferent colkflow that eropeana Dige metadataining models reported inowed underso summarizeovider follow 7t includes an13 has beenand metadataR until Aprilvalidation toe. Regardingnamely IPRa connectionand less thanrequested bymodel. Thismodels to thelections andeach ECLAPgital Library.and contents definition,n section 5.standing andthe ECLAPws to publish7 nnalogRnnysedP.t,.dPh
  • 8. DE6.1.3 - V ECLAP projec All contentto European uplo enrides assoThe contentmetadata arpresenting aa license deECLAP, maContent Proformats; IPanimations/relations arethe followin acc user conHigMoreover, mAn importanchannel) anthe contentsValidation anctmanaged inna via its metoaded;iched througcribe and maociated to ant uploaded/inre immediatea (i) sufficienefined (oneany differentoviders’ neePR on conte/html/etc. thre more articung aspects:ess to the cor device (e.gntent resolutigh resolutionmany users wnt thing to bnd can manags uploaded onnd service opthe ECLAPtadata. In evgh metadataanage the conn IPR Modelngested is inely availablent set of metfrom the set set of permeds. For exaent (licenseree permissiulated (see Fntent (e.g., thg., the contenion (e.g., then).with differene noticed isge only the cn the portal aptimisationP must be assent of Europ(some metadntent in the E(through thenitially availae for indexinadata (e.g., Eet admitted bmissions on tample: contes, permissioions are preFigure 2). Pehe content cant can be playe content cannt roles and pthe conceptcontent uploaare only manFigure sociated withpeana based Edata must beECLAP);e IPR Wizardable on theng and searchEuropeana mby “europeanthe content aent and metons, etc.); cesent whileermissions man be accessiyed via a PCn be accessibpermissions aof group: inaded by a usenaged by who2 ‐ ECLAP Permh a specific wECLAP worke sent to Eud, as describeECLAP BPNhing for all kmandatory mena:rights”), ware availableadata uploadcollection tofor the audimanaged on tible via progand/or a moble only in aare involvedECLAP eacer registeredo has the righmissionsworkflow bekflow, contenuropeana anded in next secN with maxikind of ECLetadata) andwill be publand take ind methods;opics; etc. Sio and videothe ECLAP Pgressive downobile device,a reduced Loin the ECLAch CP has itsto its grouphts to do so.efore it can bnt has to be:d others areections).imum restricLAP users. O(ii) IPR infolished on Eunto account bmetadata stSo for theo permissionPortal can bnload and/oriPad, etc.)ow ResolutioAP knowledgs own group. This is a gu 8be connectednecessary toctions, whileOnly contentormation anduropeana. Inboth ECLAPandards andpdf/images/ns and theire referred tor download)on and/or inge workflow.(distributionuarantee that8 doetdnPd/ron.nt
  • 9. DE6.1.3 - V ECLAP projec 3 ECLThe ECLAPMetadata Incollects masas MINT). Mare madeproceduresvalidation, pcontent and3.1 ECLThe ECLAPon a single aAutomatedECLAP parContent/Meuploaded viAdaptationaccessible bbrowser.); (Metadata Ttool or webContent/meneeded: chaValidation anctLAP WorkfP architecturngestion Servssive metadaMetadata coavailable thfor contentpublishing, ed metadata, IPAP Back-OP back-officeand on multiingestion –rtners and Dietadata prodia web or ingprocessesby different d(ii) Video adranslation trservice for ttadata manaanges in the wnd service opflow, Contere for contenver, ACXP bata providedming in diffhrough theand metadaetc…). The EPR models dFiguffice Servicee tools consiiple contentsIt ingests boigital Archivduction and agested. To mare exploitedevices (iPhodaptation proanslates Dubtext translatioagement - Dworkflow staptimisationent and Ment and metadback officeby digital arferent schemaOAI-PMH pata processinECLAP portdefinition, conure 3 ‐ ECLAP Baesist of a set of.oth massivelyes and fromadaptation -make the incoed: (i) Contone, iPad, Aoduces the Lblin Core meon.During the latus, changesetadata Madata managemservices andarchives anda are mappedprotocol. Ang (harvestital is the fronntent managack Office and f grid procesy and singulathe externalThis procesoming digitaltent adaptatAndroid, WinLow, Mediumetadata and mlife-cycle ofs in the metaanagementment (see Figd ECLAP Polibraries (usd accordingACXP backing, ingestiont end and prgement and EPortal architecsses that runarly metadatmetadata mass works witl resource acction to diffendows Phonem and Highmissing metaf content, madata, additiogure 3) consortal. The Meing externalto the ECLAoffice servion, analysis,rovides frontEuropeana puctureautomated wta and digitalapping tool Mth the digitacessible by dferent resolue, etc. and onDefinition vadata in diffeassive actionon of detailssists of threeMetadata Ingemetadata mAP metadataices provideproduction,t-office toolsublishing.workflow prol resources cMINT.al resource adifferent devutions produn the ECLAPversions of aerent languagns on contein the metad9e main areas:estion Servermapping toolsschema ande automated, adaptation,s to work on ocesses bothcoming fromand metadataices Contentuces contentP portal, anya video; (iii)ges by usingent could bedata sets, etc.9 :rsdd,nhmatty)ge.
  • 10. DE6.1.3 - Validation and service optimisation 10 ECLAP project Specific actions are also needed to maintain and manage the content and work both on single content andmultiple such as: delete content, update metadata, and publish content uploaded by common users.3.2 ECLAP Front office toolsThe following front office web tools of ECLAP allow users covering the whole content life-cycle: contentupload, enrichment, validation, IPR modelling and editing, content and metadata assessment andmanagement, publication, etc...WEB based content upload allows users uploading content and metadata on the portal through the Uploadweb page.Metadata Editor is the tool for enriching and validating metadata. According to the user role, the editorworks in Enrichment mode for enricher users and in Validation mode for validator user.IPR wizard allows creating IPR Model that takes into account all the issues related to publishing contentonline in the ECLAP context.Content Management tool allows users to manage content and publish them to Europeana.3.3 ECLAP Workflow ModelFront-office tools allow working on metadata in different ways. In order to avoid the production ofmistakes and problems specific accesses and roles can be granted only to skilled people and any action has tobe tracked to trace and assess quality about the performed activities. To this end, specific roles have beendefined: WFIPR (CP): responsible for the definition and validation of IPR models, and IPR assignment to thecontent; by using the IPR Wizard and during the Upload for the IPR Model Assignment. WFENRICHER (CP, {languages}): responsible for the metadata enrichment and changes in thespecified languages (add, edit metadata) by using the Metadata Editor in Enrichment mode. WFVALIDATOR (CP, {languages}): to validate the metadata for the identified language. Themetadata fields can be singularly validated until the object may pass the whole approval phase.Validation and invalidation are made by using the Metadata Editor in Validation modality. WFPUBLISHER (CP): to take the final decision for publishing on ECLAP and on Europeana. Thepublishing of single or groups of content can be performed by using the Content Management Tooland AXCP, together with much other functionalities, plus eventual new actions to be programmed onthe same tools.Back-office services are not associated with specific user role since they are performed by rules on AXCPcomputing grid background automated processes on content and metadata.ECLAP back-office services and front-office tools work both on content and metadata. However, suchprocesses have to work in concurrency: back-office content processing are accessing and processing contentin parallel to the user activities on the front-end. Activities of translation, enrichment, validation, IPRdefinition and assessment cannot be performed by more than one process at time on the same content. On theother hand, sequential processing is too expensive and time consuming to sustain the content workflow andingestion. In ECLAP, several thousands of new content per days have to be processed. To this end, aworkflow state diagram has been modelled, formalized and implemented. Therefore, to manage theconcurrency and to guarantee a safety access to the content a mechanism of lock-unlock access has beendefined. The general workflow state diagram is coded as described in Figure 4.
  • 11. DE6.1.3 - V ECLAP projec 4 ECLIn the ECLworkflow, tand linkedproblems re4.1 ContAvoid that tthe work onthe CPs torestrictions,about availinconsistentenforced invisualized orelationshipbeen implemOnce the Creuse on thein order to fValidation anctLAP IPR MLAP service,the obtainedto a reachabelated to the Itent Providethe Contentn the IPR ma: (i) unders, if needed, tlable technot rights onn a given coon a compups among themented in thePs have unde web, the neformalize thend service opManagemenContent Prometadata seble digital reIPR managemers and RighPartners (CPanagement ststand their rthey wantedologies andobjects (Incontext. Foruter). As it he rights idente ECLAP IPderstood, fromext stage wae IPR ModelptimisationFigure 4 ‐ ntoviders provets are sent tosource and wment, are dehtsPs) can incortarted. In facrights on digto impose oon the IPRconsistency cexample, thehas happenedtified have bR Wizard whm a legal poas to guide ths with relateECLAP Workflovide both coo Europeanawhen the IPscribed in thrrectly assignct the first stgital contenon their contR issues relcan be dueey may reqd in other sbeen analysehich is basedoint of view,hem on defind access restow diagramontent files aa only after thR issues havhe followingn licenses totep made bynts, (ii) guidtent once haated to themto the definuest to avoistudies or ind, formalized on ECLAPtheir positioning licensestriction/permand metadatahat the metave been corrsections.the contentsthe ECLAPde them onaving put it om, (iv) avonition of limid images ton the developd and the logIPR model.on with respeusing the tomissions.a. Accordingadata have berectly defines is the pointConsortiumchoosing wonline, (iii) ioiding the dmitations thao be copiedpment of stgic that relatect to the coools provided11 g to ECLAPeen enrichedd. The maint from whichm was to helpwhat type ofinform themdefinition ofat cannot bed if they areandards, thetes them hasntent and itsd by ECLAP1 PdnhpfmfeeessP
  • 12. DE6.1.3 - Validation and service optimisation 12 ECLAP project 4.2 IPR Models DefinitionGiven the diversity of CPs and of the related needs on their contents, a general and flexible IPR model has tobe defined. The solution can produce specialized IPR models for each CP. In this way it is possible tocustomize the binding of licenses and permissions based on the specific needs and with the greatestflexibility. An IPR Model contains: model details: IPR Model name, description, etc.; a set of permissions such as: play, download, embed, etc. and differently defined for PC (web) andmobile devices; Different permissions foro different content kind (audio, video, images, document, etc.);o different resolutions, etc. a license (Creative Commons, etc.); a Publisher ECLAP page (related to the Content Provider, right owner); an IPR ingestion identifier (needed to assign the IPR Model to the contents).In ECLAP, the users that can create and manage IPR Models are called IPR Managers.4.3 Application of IPR ModelsAn IPR Model, once defined, can be associated with a content manually from the interface of the ECLAPworkflow or automatically. If a CP has the needs to change the access permissions or licenses associatedwith content may do so by going directly to change the IPR Model. The association <IPR Model; content>remains unchanged: the permissions on content are instantly updated to all content.This was performed by giving the possibility to each CP to provide content with initial maximumrestrictions: the content, at first, is accessible only for Trusted Users. Moreover, ECLAP gives to the publicusers the visibility of some metadata (those in public domain) on the regular user. While, public users cannotaccess the digital content until the content is not associated with an IPR Model, but can see their existencewith the possibility of contacting the CP in case they were interested in the content. By associating an IPRModel to one or more content, each CP can change the initial maximum restriction access allowing externalusers to possibly access content depending on the conditions expressed in the model.4.4 Association of IPR Models at Ingestion TimeECLAP CP has to manage a huge quantity of digital contents, so the modality of make the association <IPRModel; content> one by one, is not sufficient. For this reason, the presence of an IPR ingestion identifier(IPR_id) in the IPR Model has been provided. This identifier is obviously also connected to the contents asmetadata. In this way, a CP can associate an IPR Model with contents also in case of massive ingestion andworkflow that in ECLAP is the standard way to upload content. Each CP could create several IPR Models,and may put the corresponding IPR_id as metadata on the content and the system automatically manages theassociation.4.5 IPR Models Additional ConditionsEach IPR Model is made in such a way that even the definition of additional conditions is allowed, in linewith the standard MPEG-21, ODRL, OASIS XAMCL. Some of these data may be, for example: theexpiration date, the duration of the validity, etc.
  • 13. DE6.1.3 - V ECLAP projec 5 IPRThe IPR Wiby each CPrealized staronline in thand make syon the follow rela rela5.1 RelatThe users inEach registeThe IPR Mpossible to e(registered aand that hasbelong to Etask on IPRassign the pthe system hGroup and E5.2 RelatThe relationtype to whiLorigine rinvolves othValidation anctWizard Toizard tool haP) on creatingrting from thhe ECLAP cystematic anwing two maationships amationships amtionships amnvolved in thered user maManager canestablish a hand enrolleds declared inECLAP partnR. The hierarcpermissions thas to automEducationaltionships amnships amongich they areriferimento nher permissiond service opoolas been realizg an IPR Mohe IPR Logicontext, descrnd standard thain aspects, among user rolmong permissmong user rohe IPR manaay have addiestablish thhierarchy amoto the CP’sn his/her userners). It shouchy is explaito the users.matically assol Users). Notmong permisg the permisapplied andnon è stataons.ptimisationzed in order todels and onc Model thatribed in synthe work of thapproved byles;sions.olesagement cantional roles:he set of perong the usergroup), Grour profile to buld be notedined in FigurFor exampleociate the sate that the TrFigure 5 ‐ Relassionssions (or righd modelled btrovata., theto guide then making thetakes into acthesis in thehe IPR Manathe 35 ECLAbe users regeach role carmissions foroles, that arup and Educbe an educatid that the IPRre 6, in whiche: if an IPRame permissirusted Usersationships amoghts) identifiebasing on loe arrows areCP (or moree associationccount all thee previous paagers of eachAP internatiogistered to than have a setor digital conre: Public Uscational Userional/researcR Managersh the arrowsManager asions to all ths always haveong user roles.ed have beenogical and teposed to expprecisely, th<IPR Modee issues relataragraphs, anh CP. The IPonal partnershe ECLAP ort of IPR permntent throughUser (PU, notrs (registeredch user), Trusare Trustedrepresentingssigns a perme registerede all the permn analysed onechnical aspeplain that somhe IPR Manael; content>.ted to publisnd is createdPR Logic Mos:r not (e.g., pmissions assogh the IPR Wt registered),d, enrolled tousted User (Td Users withg the relationmission to a Pusers (Groupmissions. n the basis oects. In Figume permissio13agers chosenThis tool ishing contentd to simplifyodel is basedublic users).ociated to it.Wizard. It isGroup Usero CP’s groupTU, user thatthe specificns on how toPublic User,up Users andf the contenture 7Errore.on implicitly3 nstyd..srptco,dt.y
  • 14. DE6.1.3 - V ECLAP projec Here after tcontent), usdifferent arrUnidirectioECLAP useand/or prog(without encBidirectionPartner allosame contenthen transfevia mobile c5.3 The WThe IPR Wiother users”according tmore permiwizard autoValidation ancttwo samplesseful to descrows:onal arrow ber to downlogressive downcryptions ornal arrow beows an ECLAnt from a moer the contencan be easilyWizard TooWizard creates” as defaulto the hierarcissions that homatically send service opFiguron audio cocribe the perbetween ‘Auoad the audinload). Thisprotection) fetween ‘AudiAP user to dobile device.nt into a moby moved arouols a new IPRvalues. Thechy of relatihe/she wantslects also theptimisationre 6 ‐ IPR permontent (samermission relaudio downloaio content, thbecause, frofrom the webio downloaddownload coThis becausbile device, sund and has nModel startine IPR Logicionships (seeto associatee permissionFigure 7 ‐ Imissions relationsamples canations. Thead-PC’ → ‘Athe CP impliom a technicab he can playd-PC’ ←→ ‘ontent fromse the users cso that the apno sense to bng with: “AlModel imple previous se to an IPR Mns strictly conIPR Wizard: audns on Audio con be done alrelations amAudio play-Picitly allowsal point of viy/view it on h‘Audio downPC, implicitcan downloadpplication ofbe applied. Itll permissionlemented taksections). ThModel (and thnnected to thdio sample. ntentso for the pdmong permissPC’: if a Conalso to playiew: if someohis PC whennload-mobiletly allows hid a content vf a restrictiont is also true tns for TU ankes decisionshe manager hherefore to aose chosen bdf/images/otsions are repontent Partneay it (play vione downloanever he wane-Browser’:im also to dvia a browsern to avoid ththe vice-versnd no permiss for the IPRhas just to sa set of conteby the IPR M 14ther or videopresented aser allows ania streamingads a contentts.if a Contentownload ther in their PC,he downloadsa.sions for theR Managersselect one orents) and theManager.4 osngtte,desre
  • 15. DE6.1.3 - Validation and service optimisation 15 ECLAP project This mechanism has two main advantages: the IPR Manager does not need to know the relationships amongthe permissions; the probability of error for inconsistency is null.A sample, in Figure 8: “If a CP allows all Group Users to embed an audio content”, the IPR Wizard directlyimplies the following permissions on audio content:Step 1 (‘Embed’ → ‘Play-PC’; relationships among users): (i) all the users (Public, Group, Group andEducational) can play the content on PC; (ii) Group and Educational Users can embed the content;Step 2 (‘Play-PC’ → ‘Play-mobile-browser’; relationships among users): (i) all the users (Public, Group,Group and Educational) can play the content on mobile via Browser;Step 3 (‘Play-Mobile-Browser’ → ‘Play-mobile-app’; relationships among users): (i) all the users (Public,Group, Group and Educational) can play the content on mobile via ECLAP Applications.In this case not all permissions to all users are allowed: the Creative Commons Licences cannot be associatedwith this IPR Model, so the user can choose the licence from one of the restricted licences allowed byEuropeana (“Unknown copyright status” or “Right Reserved – Restricted access”), 19. While if a CP createsan IPR Model in which all the permissions are allowed to all the users, it is possible to choose one of the CCLicences.6 ECLAP Workflow Validation ReportIn this section the analysis of workflow activity performed on the content, metadata and IPR until May 2013is reported. The number of workflow transitions from state X to state Y and their distribution in the timeperiod put in evidence the whole activity of the portal on content and metadata and allow analyzingsingularly both the back-office and the user activities. Some results are reported in the temporal domainconsidering the “month” as a time period unit.6.1 Workflow UsersActually, there are 29 workflow users. Each user could have single or multiple workflow roles. Theworkflow user roles are distributed as: 24 enrichers (WFENRICHER), 6 validators (WFVALIDATOR), 23IPR users (WFIPR) and 9 publishers (WFPUBLISHER).6.2 Workflow TransitionsThe number of transitions from state X to state Y and their distribution in the time period are reported in thefollowing tables.From To Number of TransitionsUploaded Under-AXCP 179912Under-AXCP Uploaded 179912(creation) Uploaded 117861Uploaded Under-Approval 113549Under-Approval Published 111362Uploaded Under-IPR 929Under-IPR Uploaded 929Uploaded Under-Enrichment 611Under-Enrichment Uploaded 611Under-Approval Uploaded 212
  • 16. DE6.1.3 - Validation and service optimisation 16 ECLAP project Uploaded Under-Validation 38Under-Validation Uploaded 38Published Uploaded 3Table 1 - Number of transitions from state X to state YYear/month Number of workflow state transitions2011/05 8822011/06 3152011/07 40302011/08 331712011/09 30892011/10 207372011/11 3172011/12 38772012/01 21972012/02 40332012/03 409162012/04 1722502012/05 1139212012/06 667412012/07 338682012/08 270892012/09 266122012/10 366602012/11 438002012/12 114892013/01 68662013/02 96322013/03 175752013/04 234772013/05 2508Table 2 - Number of workflow transitions per monthFigure 8 - Chart of workflow transitions per month020000400006000080000100000120000140000160000180000200000Workflow transitions/month
  • 17. DE6.1.3 - Validation and service optimisation 17 ECLAP project The following table shows some absolute values obtained from the analysis of workflow data stored duringthe ECLAP project.Metric ValueAverage value of workflow transitions percontent6.0037Max value of workflow transitions per content 104Maximum peak of workflow transitions per day 13162 (2012-05-28)Maximum peak of workflow transitions permonth172250 (2012-04)Total Number of content uploaded on the portal 117861Table 3 – Absolute values obtained from workflow data7 Workflow Tools UsageThe workflow transitions analysis mixed to information stored in the ECLAP database allowed evaluatingthe activity on metadata performed by ECLAP back-office (automated) and user (manually) by means front-end tools. Obtained results are reported in the following sections.7.1 Back-office servicesThe ECLAP back-office services consist of a set of grid processes that run periodically automated workflowprocesses both on a single and on multiple contents.7.1.1 Content and Metadata IngestionIt ingests metadata and content coming from ECLAP partners and Digital Archives and from the externalmetadata mapping tool MINT. The following table reports the number of content ingested and processed bythe back-office. At the end of ingestion the workflow state of content is put to UPLOADED.Number of processed content via ingestion 106525Table 4- Number of ingested content by the back-office7.1.2 Metadata AnalysisEvery time the back-office has to perform the metadata analysis for assessment or automated translation itperforms a transition to the UNDER-AXCP in order to lock the content and avoid that a user could be accessto it for manual editing or validation. These transitions distributed in the time (by month) provide a measureof the activity on metadata running in the back-office as reported in the following table.Year/month BackOffice Metadata Analysis2012/03 120982012/04 542262012/05 178552012/06 113592012/07 110142012/08 108972012/09 110732012/10 140402012/11 124422012/12 35552013/01 2173
  • 18. DE6.1.3 - Validation and service optimisation 18 ECLAP project 2013/02 24782013/03 64882013/04 89602013/05 1254Table 5 - Back Office Metadata Analysis by month Figure 9 – Chart of Back Office Metadata Analysis by monthRegarding the automated translation of metadata has been measured:Automatic translation of at least one metadataper content3377.1.3 Metadata ValidationEvery time content passed the metadata analysis the back-office performs a transition to the UNDER-APPROVAL. These transitions distributed in the time (by month) provide a measure of the metadatavalidation activity running in the back-office as reported in the following table.Year/month BackOffice Metadata Validation2012/03 120402012/04 529852012/05 167932012/06 94812012/07 39272012/08 17072012/09 11402012/10 17162012/11 71022012/12 15832013/01 5872013/02 12062013/03 14500100002000030000400005000060000BackOffice Metadata Analysis
  • 19. DE6.1.3 - Validation and service optimisation 19 ECLAP project 2013/04 1832Table 6 - BackOffice Metadata Validation Figure 10 - Chart of BackOffice Metadata Validation7.1.4 Content PublicationEvery time the back-office performs the publication of content in the UNDER-APPROVAL workflow stateit performs a new transition to the final state: PUBLISHED. These transitions distributed in the time (bymonth) provide a measure of the publication activity running in the back-office as reported in the followingtable.Year/month BackOffice Content Publication2012/03 12012/05 571212012/06 291272012/07 22622012/08 11912012/09 12022012/10 42072012/11 68372012/12 12972013/01 3822013/02 10432013/03 13472013/04 1581Total 107598Table 7 - BackOffice Content Publication0100002000030000400005000060000BackOffice Metadata Validation
  • 20. DE6.1.3 - Validation and service optimisation 20 ECLAP project Figure 11 - Chart of BackOffice Content Publication7.2 Front-office toolsIn this section the analysis of the activity performed by users via front-office tools is reported.7.2.1 Web Page UploadThe number of processed content uploaded manually by users via the Web Page Upload is given byconsidering the total number of content ingested by the back-office and total number of workflow transitionsfrom ‘creation’ to ‘UPLOADED’ state.Number of processed content via web upload 113367.2.2 Metadata Editor: Enrichment Mode & Validation ModeTo evaluate the usage of Metadata Editor in enrichment and validation activity both in the time and bypartner, we measured the number and the event time of workflow transitions from UPLOADED to UNDER-ENRICH and from UPLOADED to UNDER-VALIDATION. The former transition gives a measure ofenrichment activity and the latter of the validation activity. Event time has been grouped by month and thendistributed by partners who made them.The following table reports the values for transitions grouped by month.Year/month Enrichment Activity Validation Activity2011/05 43 72011/06 55 42011/07 17 02011/08 2 02011/09 5 02011/10 18 02011/11 7 52011/12 6 12012/01 8 10100002000030000400005000060000BackOffice Content Publication
  • 21. DE6.1.3 - Validation and service optimisation 21 ECLAP project 2012/02 3 02012/03 7 02012/04 12 02012/05 17 02012/06 38 02012/07 83 02012/08 25 22012/09 12 22012/10 15 02012/11 134 02012/12 8 02013/01 17 02013/02 7 02013/03 12 12013/04 60 15Total 611 380204060801001201401602011/052011/062011/072011/082011/092011/102011/112011/122012/012012/022012/032012/042012/052012/062012/072012/082012/092012/102012/112012/122013/012013/022013/032013/04Metadata Editor: Enrichment Activities02468101214162011/052011/062011/072011/082011/092011/102011/112011/122012/012012/022012/032012/042012/052012/062012/072012/082012/092012/102012/112012/122013/012013/022013/032013/04Metadata Editor: Validation Activities
  • 22. DE6.1.3 - Validation and service optimisation 22 ECLAP project The distribution of enrichment and validation activity by partner is reported in the following charts:7.2.3 IPR Wizard UsageTo evaluate the usage of IPR Wizard both in the time and by partner, we measured the number and the eventtime of workflow transitions from UPLOADED to UNDER-IPR. Event time has been grouped by month andthen distributed by partners who made them.The following table reports the values for transitions grouped by month.Year/month IPR Wizard Activities2011/05 932011/06 2852%19%5%5%5%3%3% 2%2%1%1%1% 1% 1%0% 0% 0%Enrichment Activity By PartnerMUZEUMDSIFIFFOSZMIUCLMADDUASLAUROSUCAMCTA‐UNIROMAFFEACBELLONEBEELD EN GELUIDIKPOtherUVAESMAE‐IPPITBUG77%17%3%3%Validation Activity By PartnerDSIADDUASLAUROSBEELD EN GELUIDUCAM
  • 23. DE6.1.3 - Validation and service optimisation 23 ECLAP project 2011/07 292011/08 142011/10 262011/11 72012/01 12012/02 242012/03 52012/04 122012/05 102012/06 152012/07 432012/08 802012/09 1392012/10 1012012/11 742012/12 482013/01 1442013/03 12013/04 35Total 929The distribution of IPR activity by partner is reported in the following charts:0204060801001201401602011/052011/062011/072011/082011/102011/112012/012012/022012/032012/042012/052012/062012/072012/082012/092012/102012/112012/122013/012013/032013/04IPR Wizard Activities
  • 24. DE6.1.3 - Validation and service optimisation 24 ECLAP project 7.2.4 IPR Models UsedAs reported in the table below, there are in use 67 IPR models, 40 are restrictive not public models while 27are public models. Most content providers used 1, 2 or 3 models for their content but there some partnersused even 4, 8 or 12 models.§ Eclap Content Provider Rights url Public Count1. CTFR http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-f/ 1 413352. ITB http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 229453. OSZMI http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ 1 87624. UG http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-f/ 1 51215. BEELD EN GELUID http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ 1 30476. FIFF http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 28897. LIBERLIBER http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 1 24678. CTA-UNIROMA http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 24509. MUZEUM http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 1 230010. ESMAE-IPP http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 1 222311. IKP http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 140112. UCAM http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 1 137013. IKP http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 112014. IKP http://www.europeana.eu/rights/unknown/ 0 94015. UCLM http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 84516. BELLONE http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-f/ 1 49517. IKP http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 47718. UCLM http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 44919. DSI http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-f/ 1 39620. IKP http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 34221. BELLONE http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 34122. ESMAE-IPP http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 1 32423. IKP to be defined 0 32024. ARCHIBRAILLE http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ 1 26925. OSZMI http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 25526. UCAM http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 1 25074%4%4%3%3%2%2%2%1%1%1%1%1% 0% 0%0%IPR Activity By PartnerBELLONEDSIUCAMMUZEUMUGFIFFFFEACADDUASLAUROSCTA‐UNIROMAUVAOSZMIUCLMESMAE‐IPPIKPBEELD EN GELUIDNINA
  • 25. DE6.1.3 - Validation and service optimisation 25 ECLAP project 27. IKP http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 24428. IKP http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 20129. UVA http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 1 18330. UVA http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ 1 13331. UCLM http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 1 11232. FFEAC http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 1 10233. IKP to be defined 0 9434. DSI http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 6935. DSI http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-f/ 1 6736. IKP http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 6137. ESMAE-IPP http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ 1 5238. IKP http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 4139. IKP to be defined 0 2540. DSI http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 1841. DSI http://www.europeana.eu/rights/unknown/ 1 1442. IKP http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ 1 943. MUZEUM http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 944. ADDUASLAUROS http://www.europeana.eu/rights/unknown/ 1 745. IKP http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 746. OSZMI http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 647. NTUA http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 548. CTFR http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-f/ 1 449. CTFR http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 350. IKP http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 351. AXMEDIS Cross MediaFinderhttp://www.europeana.eu/rights/unknown/ 1 252. AXMEDIS Cross MediaFinderhttp://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-f/ 1 253. BEELD EN GELUID http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 254. CTA-UNIROMA http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 255. DSI http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 256. IKP http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 257. ITB http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-f/ 1 258. MUZEUM http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 259. UVA http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 260. AXMEDIS Cross MediaFinderhttp://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 161. CTA-UNIROMA http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 162. DSI http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 163. DSI http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 164. IKP http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 165. IKP http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 166. MUZEUM http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ 1 167. UVA http://www.europeana.eu/rights/unknown/ 0 1
  • 26. DE6.1.3 - V ECLAP projec CumulativeRights urlhttp://wwwhttp://wwwhttp://creathttp://creathttp://creathttp://wwwto be definehttp://creathttp://creathttp://creat7.2.5 CoTo evaluatewe measurPUBLISHEThe followiYear/month2012/052012/062012/072012/082012/092012/102012/112012/122013/012013/022013/032013/04Validation ancte value for Riw.europeanaw.europeanativecommontivecommontivecommonw.europeanaedtivecommontivecommontivecommonontent Mane the usage ored the numED. Event timing table repoh0500010000150002000025000300003500040000450001nd service opights urla.eu/rights/rra.eu/rights/rrns.org/publicns.org/licensns.org/licensa.eu/rights/uns.org/publicns.org/licensns.org/licensnagement Toof Content Mmber and theme has beenorts the valu1 4 7 10 1ptimisationr-f/r-r/cdomain/mases/by-nc-ndses/by-sa/3.0nknown/cdomain/zerses/by-nc-sa/ses/by-nc/3.0oolManagemente event timgrouped byes for transitT3 16 19 22 2IPPuC43ark/1.0/ 1d/3.0/ 90/ 394ro/1.0/ 2/3.0/ 10/ 9tool for pubme of workfmonth and thtions groupedPubli15812151110330525213163221751329Total 376425 28 31 34 3PR Modeublic Not Pount47422419988149331047964439269349blication activflow transitiohen distributd by month.ication Activ50437 40 43 46 4elsPublicvity both inons from Uted by partnevities49 52 55 58 6the time andUNDER-APPers who mad61 64 6726d by partner,PROVAL toe them.6 ,o
  • 27. DE6.1.3 - Validation and service optimisation 27 ECLAP project The distribution of Publication activity by partner is reported in the following charts:0200400600800100012001400Publication Activities63%15%7%7%4%2% 1%1%0%Publication Activity By PartnerCTA‐UNIROMAUCLMFIFFMUZEUMBEELD EN GELUIDDSIUCAMIKPADDUASLAUROS
  • 28. DE6.1.3 - Validation and service optimisation 28 ECLAP project 8 References1. Margaritopoulos, T., Margaritopoulos, M., Mavridis, I., Manitsaris, A. (2008). A conceptual framework for metadata qualityassessment. Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, 104-113.2. Yu, J., Buyya, R. (2005). A taxonomy of workflow management systems for grid computing. Journal of Grid Computing, 3(3-4), 171-200.3. W.M.P. van der Aalst and K.M. van Hee. (2002) Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems. MIT Press,Cambridge, MA, USA.4. Bellini, P., Bruno, I., Nesi, P. (2005). A distributed environment for automatic multimedia content production based on GRID.Proceedings - First International Conference on Automated Production of Cross Media Content for Multi-Channel Distribution,AXMEDIS 2005, 2005 134-142.5. Bellini, P., Bruno, Cenni D., Nesi, P., (2012) "Micro grids for scalable media computing and intelligence on distributedscenarios", IEEE Multimedia, IEEE Computer Soc. Press.6. Bellini P., Nesi P., Paolucci M. (2013). IPR Management Models for Cultural Heritage on ECLAP Best Practice Network,submitted to IEEE ICC 2013 Workshop on “Beyond Social Networks: Collective Awareness”, Budapest, Hungary, June 9-13,20137. Europeana, http://www.europeana.eu8. P. Bellini, I. Bruno, N. Mitolo, M. Paolucci, “DE3.3.2 infrastructure Content and Metadata Processing and Semantification”http://www.eclap.eu/urn:axmedis:00000:obj:a722b357-4644-4076-a259-0cbc6260ad79. Kollia I. , Tzouvaras V., Drosopoulos N., Stamou G., “A systemic approach for effective semantic access to cultural content”,Semantic Web, v.3 n.1, p.65-83, January 2012.10. X. Wang, “MPEG‐21 rights expression language: Enabling interoperable digital rights management,” IEEE Multimedia,11(4):84–87, 2004.11. R. Iannella, S. Guth, D. Pähler, and Andreas Kasten. ODRL version 2.0 core model. Specification, W3C ODRL CommunityGroup, 04 2012. http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/two/model/12. T. Moses, “Privacy policy profile of XACML v2.0,” Oasis standard, OASIS, 02 2005. http://docs.oasis‐open.org/xacml/2.0/PRIVACY‐ PROFILE/access_control‐xacml‐2.0‐privacy_profile‐spec‐os.pdf13. R. Iannella and S. Guth. ODRL version 2.0 common vocabulary. Specification, W3C ODRL Community Group, 04 2012.http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/two/vocab/14. M. Buffa and C. Faron-Zucker. Ontology-based access rights management, “In Advances in Knowledge Discovery andManagement,” vol. 398, Studies in Computational Intelligence, pp 49–61. Springer, 2012.15. Creative Commons, http://creativecommons.org16. European Library of Artistic Performance, ECLAP, http://www.eclap.eu/17. “ECLAP DE3.1 infrastructure: ingestion and processing content and metadata,” 2011, ECLAP Project, http://www.eclap.eu/urn:axmedis:00000:obj:a345a84f-6fdf-4f84-a412-88094ce363e218. ECLAP Partners. List and information on ECLAP Partners available at: http://www.eclap.eu/drupal/?q=node/357819. ‘Guidelines for the europeana:rights metadata element’, v4.0 - 2020. P. Bellini, D. Cenni, P. Nesi, “On the Effectiveness and Optimization of Information Retrieval for Cross Media Content”, Proc.of the KDIR 2012, Part of IC3K 2012, Int. Joint Conf. on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and KnowledgeManagement. Barcelona, Spain, 4-7 October 2012.

×