Timecode Metadata

Timecode metadata are the critical link in the between textual content and audio or video in digital environments. Different architectures for timecode deployment have evolved independently in the creation of digital oral history collections, and all help to significantly increase digital accessibility. With many models now on the table it is an appropriate time to take inventory of what approaches are available, closely evaluate the relationship between these models, understand the range or textual data they are linked to, and elucidate the current “state of the art” to find common ground for future developments. 

Timecodes are being put to use in two broad ways: 1.) as transcription timecodes, enhancing full text transcriptions with a cross-reference to time points in the source audio or video, and 2.) as audio or video file metadata enhancing a longer audio or video file, or A/V timecodes. Within A/V timecodes two basic models are emerging, one that uses timecodes pointing to a single point in time in the digital file, allowing the user to play forward from that point. (We might call these indexing point timecodes.)  In another model, (which we might call passage timecodes), timecodes are defined as inpoints and outpoints giving meaningful content within a longer digital file its own begining, middle and ending. 

The latter model of defining passage timecodes can take place in database environments where the in/out points are just references that move the listener digitally (hypertextually) to the passage of interest. In other contexts, practitioners manage oral histories by hard-editing passages permanently, thus creating segments or clips from the full length digital source file.   

All timecode deployments require choices to be made--regarding the frequency of transcription or indexing point timecodes, or the length and comprehensiveness of passages timecodes. No standards have been set as to how these choices are made and there are strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches. I hope to have the opportunity to compare notes with others using the various models, determine the trades-offs between models, establish what can and cannot be standardized, and allow digital oral history stewards to proceed with future investments in software more informed.

 

Indexes as Evaluative Tools

When I began my Ph.D studies, my graduate advisor gave me a valuable piece of advice: you will not have the time or energy to pursue every good idea you have. This is not only solid life advice regarding personal time management but holds very true for "oral history in the digital age". Not every recorded oral history is destined to make it into a PBS documentary--most won't. With a good index, or sometimes just a decent inventory, one can make choices about what material is strongest and where, when, why and how it should be put to use in any of the increasing multi-media avenues available. 

Representation of recordings through Annotation

Our practice of Oral History content management, which we often refer to as digital indexing, began by questioning the assumption that recordings must be transcribed word for word before they can be used.  In the database-driven environments we work in, summary annotations are much preferred to full transcription. The work of the annotator is at the heart of digital indexing and we continue to reiterate that full transcription is always an option if the need is there and time and resources allow. Here are some random musings about annotation...

• Annotation is about representing what is on a recording in a text format.  In this sense, it is no different than a transcription.
• An annotation needs to describe passages of audio adequately enough to lead a user to that passage. Defining the users well may be as important or more important than the specificity with which the annotation represents the passage.
• An annotation can be enhanced by using strategic vocabulary words within the prose of the annotation. Thus full text searches will get hits on that digital object (passage of audio or video). 
• All annotations are subjective, and that is totally okay. It is all part of recognizing, defining, and composing toward an audience of users. Our subjectivity saves them time.

Multi-Dimensional Indexing: A Dynamic Process

Traditional cataloging and indexing might typically be bounded in scope--like in the case of a collection catalogue or an index is developed for a particular book.  But oral history collections and other digital collections are often associated with active projects that are growing over time. If the indexing process is strongly content-informed, and the content is changing dynamically over time, then the indexing process must not only be an iterative one, but a dynamic one as well.

What does this mean for our controlled vocabulary development process? In order to begin to capture the breadth and diversity of a collection via an index, the more content used to contribute to its development, the better. But how much of the content should inform the index, and when? Is it okay not to reevaluate the earliest indexed material and code it up with the evolving framework?

Editor

As with any published document, an editor is needed to assure consistency and quality. An editorial role is also important to unify inconsistencies that may emerge between different annotators of the audio and video by dictating a style and giving feedback until the desired “voice” is achieved. The work may be as much managerial in nature as it is an editing role.  In general, the editor should be the master of all the text created in the annotation/indexingprocess. The editor would not be expected to have heard every minute of the original audio or video, but they would be expected to have read most or every word annotated within the collection.  In a larger project, the editor might delegate editorial tasks to trusted personnel, but ultimately there should be one person at the top of a hierarchy who is ultimately responsible for all published content.

For newly developed controlled vocabulary, there is also an editorial role associated with approving new terms. In the context of a custom/local controlled vocabulary being developed from scratch, the editorial process occurs as proposed terms are agreed upon and finalized.  In the case of updating, amending or expanding on an existing standard or local controlled vocabulary, content management systems like CONTENTdm have features that cue and allow a librarian to approve specific terms that have been added. In that case, the librarian who has the authority to approve or disapprove of a term being added is acting as an editor as well.

Return to Oral History Digital Indexing Roles.

Annotator

Annotation is a key step upon which indexing is built, and the role of the annotator is to link the content of the audio or video with meaningful text. Annotation is itself a form of indexing—creating text that directs a user to content of interest—that simply takes a linear form, similar to a transcript. The basic skill is listening to a recording, and composing text that summarizes the content. Although annotation seeks to lighten the tedious burden of word-for-word transcription, it still takes significant time to complete (at least 1 ¼ hours per hour of interview, sometimes up to 2+ hours or more if a great deal of detail is desired). Annotation proceeds faster with practice and with increasing familiarity with the content. Familiarity with the content from the outset (whether because of personal background/interest or because the annotator conducted the interviews) is typically an additional advantage. Because annotation is the foundation upon which the indexing is built, consistency of style, density, and overall quality of annotation is strongly recommended. Generally, annotations that are shorter but consistent are better than a highly varied collection of sparse and detailed annotation written by different people in different styles. When there is more than one annotator, an editor is an essential player in the indexing process. 

Return to Oral History Digital Indexing Roles.

Oral History Digital Indexing Roles

Digital Indexing work is more akin to art than science. Accordingly, breaking down the process to a series of universally applicable steps or elements is challenging.  This is both because of the nature of the work but also due to the fact that every project we work on is different. Our clients’ placement on the digital spectrum varies--ranging from brand new oral history projects where not a single recording has yet been made to well-developed projects with large amounts of digital material that need to be multi-dimensionally indexed.  Breaking projects into phases, tasks, or other elemental organizational schemes can be done, but is not necessarily the most useful organizational indexing schema for this type of content (if you know what I mean).

The indexing process can be described by the roles of the people involved. These roles described are not mutually exclusive, but they do comprehensively cover the phases of work necessary to get a project from beginning to end. The following titles for the various “roles” are conceptual only.  In some smaller projects, one or two people are taking on all of the roles. In other projects, several people may take on a single role (for example, where volunteers are organized to create annotations). These roles can be filled by people within or outside of an organization, be paid or volunteer positions, and engage highly skilled and knowledgeable people, or not.  They are presented here as a basic guideline of “who and what” is needed within an annotation/indexing project, and each role will be described in more detail in their own post.

• Interviewer
• Annotator
• Indexer/Coder
• Editor
• Producer/Publisher

“Inliteration”

It seems I’m getting behind on my posts…. Or actually, it seems I was getting ahead of myself.

I want to talk about a concept I’ve been dabbling with for a couple of years. I call it “inliteration”. It’s a word I made up to capture the essence of what it means to make up a word. Inliteration is similar to “incarnation”, except instead of meaning to become “embodied” in a thing that is physical, it limited to taking form as words.

Here’s Merriam-Webster’s definition(s) of incarnation:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incarnation

So to parallel those definitions, I propose:

Inliteration

1a (1): the embodiment of a deity or spirit in a word or group of words in human language (2): the union of concept with language analogous to the union of divinity with humanity in Christianity b: a quality or concept definable as a word or group of words

2: the act of inliterating: the state of being inliterated

3: language

This is a cut at a definition… enough, I think, to be able to refer to it for other discussions. I’ve found it a handy word to have in conversation with a small group of friends who talk about library science, indexing, and life philosophy in general.