Re: image description as metadata

From: sheila hannah (shannah@UNM.EDU)
Date: Mon Nov 13 2000 - 09:29:35 CST

  • Next message: Sheryl Garcia: "Re: image description as metadata" 

    Message-Id: <200011131532.IAA23154@dns.ccit.arizona.edu>
Date:         Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:29:35 -0700
From: sheila hannah <mailto:shannah@UNM.EDU>
Subject:      Re: image description as metadata
To: mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU

    <pre> Kari,

    Try the Getty Standards Program "Intorduction to Metadata: Pathways to Digital Information" at http://www.getty.edu/gri/standard/intrometadata

    --On Sunday, November 12, 2000, 9:48 AM +0000 Kari Kraus <mailto:KKraus27@AOL.COM> wrote:

    >> I'm hoping someone on the list can point me to a study or two on image
    >> description as metadata. My sense is that while controlled vocabularies
    >> are a favorite talking point among information managers, the free-text
    >> descriptions that often accompany visual objects in a database haven't
    >> been subjected to the same kind of scrutiny. A representative example
    >> that to my mind underscores the need for more conversation:
    >>
    >> In its recently published guidelines on metadata, the Digital Imaging
    >> Group (comprised of representatives from Kodak, Canon,
    >> Hewlett-Packard,and Fuji, among a host of others) had this to say: "once
    >> an image is retrieved, some data that describes the image but is not
    >> useful when searching may be included. For example 'Craig is the guy
    >> asleep on the
    >> lounge' is not all that useful when searching, but is useful when
    >> describing the content.
    >>
    >> Now it is not my intention to impugn the recommendations set forth in
    >> this ambitious document (a milestone achievement that attempts to
    >> establish much-needed jurisdiction over the largely makeshift world of
    >> metadata production; its discussion on image capture metadata, for
    >> example, is admirably comprehensive and authoritative), but the
    >> tautology underlying this
    >> quotation (keywords in first sentence: "describes . . . useful . . .
    >> searching"; keywords in second sentence: "useful . . . searching . . .
    >> describing") does little to help clarify the nature of the interface
    >> between these respective data fields.
    >>
    >> Any thoughts on how to define the relationship between descriptive and
    >> more strictly classificatory categories of information? Is there a
    >> theoretical body of literature in place that looks at the challenge of
    >> describing images?
    >> A set of guidelines or recommendations? Any suggestions would be greatly
    >> appreciated.
    >>
    >> Best wishes,
    >>
    >> Kari Kraus
    >> University of Rochester
    >> mailto:kkru@mail.rochester.edu
    >> mailto:kkraus27@aol.com
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    > --part2_80.2c24c8b.274006b2_boundary
    > Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
    > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    >
    > <HTML><FONT SIZE=2>
    > <BR>
    > <BR>
    > <BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid;
    > MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I'm hoping
    > someone on the list can point me to a study or two on image
    > <BR>description as metadata. &nbsp;My sense is that while controlled
    > vocabularies are <BR>a favorite talking point among information managers,
    > the free-text <BR>descriptions that often accompany visual objects in a
    > database haven't been <BR>subjected to the same kind of scrutiny. &nbsp;A
    > representative example that to my <BR>mind underscores the need for more
    > conversation:
    > <BR>
    > <BR>In its recently published guidelines on metadata, the Digital Imaging
    > Group <BR>(comprised of representatives from Kodak, Canon,
    > Hewlett-Packard,and Fuji, <BR>among a host of others) had this to say:
    > "once an image is retrieved, some <BR>data that describes the image but
    > is not useful when searching may be <BR>included. For example 'Craig is
    > the guy asleep on the
    > <BR>lounge' is not all that useful when searching, but is useful when
    > <BR>describing the content. <BR>
    > <BR>Now it is not my intention to impugn the recommendations set forth in
    > this <BR>ambitious document (a milestone achievement that attempts to
    > establish <BR>much-needed jurisdiction over the largely makeshift world
    > of metadata <BR>production; its discussion on image capture metadata, for
    > example, is <BR>admirably comprehensive and authoritative), but the
    > tautology underlying <BR>this <BR>quotation (keywords in first sentence:
    > "describes . . . useful . . . <BR>searching"; keywords in second
    > sentence: "useful . . . searching . . . <BR>describing") does little to
    > help clarify the nature of the interface <BR>between these respective
    > data fields.
    > <BR>
    > <BR>Any thoughts on how to define the relationship between descriptive
    > and more <BR>strictly classificatory categories of information? &nbsp;Is
    > there a theoretical <BR>body of literature in place that looks at the
    > challenge of describing <BR>images? <BR>A set of guidelines or
    > recommendations? &nbsp;Any suggestions would be greatly <BR>appreciated.
    > <BR>
    > <BR>Best wishes,
    > <BR>
    > <BR>Kari Kraus
    > <BR>University of Rochester
    > <BR>mailto:kkru@mail.rochester.edu
    > <BR>mailto:kkraus27@aol.com

    Sheila Hannah Bainbridge Bunting Slide Library University of New Mexico mailto:shannah@unm.edu

    </pre>

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 13 2000 - 09:37:16 CST