I apologies if this is not the right forum for contributing to the discussion (I’ll let Marc sort that out J).
I would like to bring two additional elements into the discussion of digital media (music) objects. I did not have a chance to do that more broadly at the meeting in Oxford;
so I briefly describe them below. They expand/generalize the notions and sketches that Max provided (BTW, very nicely done).
I would be happy to discuss these in more details when convenient. I can send around slides and references to papers but I suspect it would be more effective first to
present on the issues, explain the gist and then discuss the implications for FAST.
Regards,
Natasa
Natasa Milic-Frayling - Principal Researcher - Microsoft Research Cambridge UK
- Tel: +44 1223 479 772
1. digital media ≠ content files (one has to consider the software stack and content files)
Digital artefacts are fundamentally ‘computational’, which means that they can be experienced only while some sort of software is running (even if it is just for rendering
or streaming/playing.
Traditionally, we have been discouraged to think of software when relating to digital content/media. That is evident from the design of file management systems, archiving
practices, publishing practices, etc.
- The
problem is rather serious. We are conditioned to concern ourselves with files when ensuring that our valuable digital assets are safe and reusable. However strongly we may try to resist it, we are constantly lured back to the belief that our ‘work outcomes’
and assets are in file objects.
- Yet,
any use scenario we consider, will require hardware+software stack+content files. In many instances, we can relax the dependence on one of these. For example, there is a tendency to reduce hardware-software dependence but some business models lock them together.
However, we always need to combine files with some software.
Recommendations: Ensure that DMO includes software entities/properties
because they determine the properties of the user experience with digital media and. Change the terminology if needed. Namely, the notion of Object may pull the debate back to a restricted scope, focussing primarily on file metadata manipulation and management.
2. Ecology of tools, artefacts, and practices
Similarly to the digital object debate, there is a need for appropriate notion to capture the history/evolution and relationships among different digital artefacts and
provide means for their re-use.
It is very tempting to create timelines of files or hyperlinked structures of content files to convey or induce meaning. However, these models quickly run into issues.
No method that reasons only in terms of file objects, can capture practices and experiences related to the creation or consumption of media because much of that are not attributes content files but properties of the computation tools and human-computer processes.
We have done research on the use of digital technologies as support for scientific discovery. I see a great similarity with music/digital media production and use. In
order to assist scientists in reasoning about their past work and bringing insights into current experiences, we introduced the ‘digital ecology’ framework that included data/content+tools+practices. Based on that framework we designed applications that let
them reflect upon their work, engage in collective sense-making, etc.
I expect that similar breadth of understanding would be critical for creating digital music applications and services.
Recommendation: Adopt
the digital ecology framework to conduct user research, gather requirements, design and evaluate music/digital media tools, services, and experiences.
with thanks to max wilson and apologies for sitting on this for so long….
max came up with the attached sketch/concept for DMOs at the oxford meeting.
i’ve been meaning to share it for too long. we should use it to shape our ideas.