Richard Rinehart
Since the beginning
r.rinehart@bucknell.edu
Works in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania United States of America

PORTFOLIO (4)
BIO
Richard Rinehart is the Director of the Samek Art Museum at Bucknell University. Previous to holding his position at Bucknell, Richard was the Digital Media Director and Adjunct Curator at the UC Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive. Richard has taught digital art studio and theory at UC Berkeley in the Center for New Media and Art Practice departments. He has also been visiting faculty at the San Francisco Art Institute, UC Santa Cruz, San Francisco State University, Sonoma State University, and JFK University. Richard sits on the Executive Committee of the UC Berkeley Center for New Media and has served on the Board of Directors for New Langton Arts in San Francisco. Richard manages research projects in the area of digital culture, including the NEA-funded project, 'Archiving the Avant Garde', a national consortium of museums and artists distilling the essence of digital art in order to document and preserve it. Richard is a new media artist whose art works, papers, projects, and more can be found at http://www.coyoteyip.com
Discussions (28) Opportunities (4) Events (14) Jobs (8)
DISCUSSION

Re: RHIZOME_RARE: Metadata


This is very helpful. It makes me think that perhaps Rhizome could
(with all of your help :) compile a list of relevant terms from a
variety of sources, include that in a new metadata model and
submission form (terms along with sources are listed as options), and
then add on a dynamic folksonomies function. I don't want to speak
for what Rhizome could do, but it seems to make sense.

Richard Rinehart

>gh replies:
>
>I just did a search on the Getty for digital art. It has no such
>category. I then did a search on Wikipedia and got a fairly concise
>definition page for digital art. I would suggest that you look at
>wikipedia as one source for a search taxonomy. They are real good at
>this. Definitions for art works are always tricky. For example,
>animation art is a good term. It can cover a really broad category
>that goes from animated photography to cartoons. Here's a quick
>rumination on animation ;-)
>
>Animation:
>paper
>flip book
>zoetrope
>cartoon
>digital
>vector
>photo
>morph
>hand made
>illustration
>Disney
>commercial
>Flash
>early
>story board
>artists
>performance
>
>I could go on...
>
>
>
>On Apr 25, 2006, at 9:28 PM, Richard Rinehart wrote:
>
>>
>>To view this entire thread, click here:
>>http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread!206&textA392#41392
>>
>>+ + +
>>
>>Hello Rhizomes,
>>
>>I'm writing to follow up on Lauren's email about the Rhizome ArtBase
>>and to kick off a conversation about the language we use to describe
>>works in the ArtBase.
>>
>>There are different types of metadata relevant to works in the
>>ArtBase and some are fairly straightforward such as Creators, Dates,
>>and Titles. But the type of metadata that is most problematic and at
>>the same time most community-driven is descriptive metadata such as
>>Type, Genre, and Keywords. The data-values used to fill out those
>>metadata are terms taken from vocabularies (the lists of different
>>types, genres, etc.) If you have ever submitted a work to the
>>ArtBase, you know what these look like: Types include animation-art,
>>audio-art, etc.; Genres include abstract-art, allegory-art, etc; and
>>Keywords include access, animation, archive, etc. (a full list of
>>Rhizome's data-values/vocabularies follows below).
>>
>>Rhizome would like to update the vocabularies it uses for this
>>descriptive metadata. Rhizome has cited three reasons for changing;
>>the vocabularies are incomplete, the vocabularies are however key as
>>they are how visitors search the vast Rhizome site, and lastly, but
>>not least, there is no canon or authoritative source for terms
>>related to digital art, so Rhizome can take this practical need and
>>turn it into an opportunity to engage a community discussion about
>>vocabularies and to set an example for others to follow. All metadata
>>specific to one discipline, but especially vocabularies, need to
>>arise from the community's practice and not be imposed from outside
>>or the descriptions and the artifacts being described will never
>>quite match up. It is also important to collaborate and coordinate
>>with other groups working on digital art metadata and preservation,
>>so that's another reason to have this conversation on RAW and why
>>Rhizome will also be convening people from the Variable Media,
>>Archiving the Avant Garde, and Canadian DOCAM projects to discuss
>>this as well.
>>
>>Some questions and considerations that might get the conversation started:
>>
>>1) Do Rhizome's vocabularies need to be compatible with other
>>metadata standards? If so, which, and how much?
>>
>>Thoughts: Many other disciplines and communities use what they call
>>"controlled" vocabularies or authoritative thesauri. For instance the
>>art world has used the Getty's Art and Architecture Thesaurus for
>>years
>>(http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/aat/).
>>Systems are then built using these vocab standards. If Rhizome were
>>in some way compatible with these standards, then new search engines
>>could search across distributed art resources online from Getty
>>databases to Rhizome's ArtBase ensuring that digital art is not
>>"ghettoized" because of incompatible languages. Interoperability is
>>important in a semantic as well as technical sense, but luckily
>>compatibility does not necessarily require that one adopt the
>>"authoritative" vocabulary completely, or exclusively.
>>
>>2) What can we propose here that Rhizome can practically accomplish
>>given limited resources?
>>
>>The larger cultural world is cursed with a plethora of metadata
>>"standards" and vocabularies that are so complex that no one can
>>afford to implement them and thus they go unused and interoperability
>>remains a theoretical concept. We should be smarter than that. A
>>simple system that works and can be realistically maintained is worth
>>more than a complex solution that never happens.
>>
>>3) Currently the metadata that uses vocabularies is divided into
>>type, genre, and keywords -- are these categories sufficient? Should
>>we add others?
>>
>>Thoughts: Many other disciplines and communities use metadata
>>categories similar to this. For instance, in various art-world/museum
>>metadata standards they use Genre to indicate a broad category
>>("painting"), then Type to indicate a format within the Genre
>>("watercolor"), and then Subject (keywords) to indicate "intellectual
>>access points" ("landscape") that people will search on to find the
>>record.
>>
>>4) Do we want to enhance/ elaborate/ add on to our existing descriptive
>>terms or keep the current controlled vocab as is, and make folksonomy also
>>an option?
>>
>>Thoughts: Can one use folksonomies or other dynamic systems to keep a
>>vocabulary fresh yet still retain some level of compatibility with
>>other standards?
>>
>>5) who is the artbase for? Who is its audience, and how does that
>>affect our re-design of the metadata.
>>
>>Thoughts: Related to this is the question of what the long-term use
>>of the ArtBase should or will be and how can we support that with
>>better vocabularies?
>>
>>So, let the games begin! What do you think?
>>
>>Richard Rinehart
>>
>>----------------------------
>>Rhizome ArtBase Vocabularies
>>
>>TYPE
>>The type field describes the abstract media type of the art object.
>>
>>-Animation-art work in which motion graphics play a significant role
>>-Audio-art work has strong audio component
>>-Game-art work is a game or involves gaming in significant ways
>>-Installation-art object documents a physical installation
>>-Performance-art object documents a performative art work
>>-Software-art work is an executable program or involves original
>>stand-alone software
>>-Video-art object uses Quicktime, RealVideo, or other time-based video
>>-Virtual-art work creates a 3D, immersive or otherwise virtual world
>>-Visual-art work is particularly graphical or especially visual in nature
>>-Text-art work is ASCII or otherwise text-based
>>
>>GENRE
>>The genre field describes the general category of your art object
>>defined through style, form, or content.
>>
>>-Abstract-art object is visually abstract
>>-Allegory-art object uses allegory or metaphor
>>-Anti-art-art object overtly rejects artistic conventions or codes
>>-Collaborative-art object was created by more than one person
>>-Collider-art object dynamically combines material from various sources
>>-Conceptual-art object is driven primarily by ideas
>>-Contextual-art object is site-specific, or requires a specific
>>situation to function
>>-Database-art object incorporates databases or archives
>>-Documentary-art object uses found material as evidence; art object
>>records events for posterity; art object uses documentary data
>>-Event-art object is/was an event such as a performance or netcast
>>-Formalist-art object is primarily concerned with the aesthetics of form
>>-Generative-art object is created afresh for each viewing according
>>to certain contingent factors
>>-Historical-art object is about the recording or revealing of past events
>>-Homepage-art object is (or resembles) a personal website
>>-Information map-art object is about the visual display of
>>statistical or other quantitative information
>>-Narrative-art object tells a story
>>-Offline-art object has a major offline component
>>-Participatory-art object requires input from users
>>-Readymade-art object involves found material not originally meant to be art
>>-Tactical-art object is example of tactical media; art object is
>>resistive, political or otherwise confrontational
>>-Telematic-art object uses distance communication, or allows for
>>remote manipulation of objects
>>
>>KEYWORDS
>>
>> access
>> animation
>> archive
>> art world
>> artificial life
>> audio
>> bio
>> body
>> broadcast
>> browser
>> CD-ROM
>> censorship
>> cinema
>> colonialism
>> commercialization
>> community
>> conference
>> corporate
>> death
>> design
>> desire
>> digital
>> disappearance
>> education
>> email
>> exhibition
>> film
>> fund
>> futurism
>> game
>> gender
>> globalization
>> identity
>> immersion
>> interact
>> interface
>> Internet
>> labor
>> language
>> live
>> machine
>> marginality
>> media activism
>> meme
>> memory
>> nature
>> net.art
>> network
>> nostalgia
>> performance
>> posthuman
>> postmodern
>> privacy
>> public space
>> publish
>> queer
>> radio
>> resistance
>> responsibility
>> robot
>> rumor
>> security
>> social space
>> space
>> surveillance
>> tactical media
>> technophobia
>> television
>> Third World
>> 3D
>> underground
>> utopia
>> video
>> virtual reality
>> VRML
>> War
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>>Richard Rinehart
>>---------------
>>Director of Digital Media
>>Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
>>bampfa.berkeley.edu
>>---------------
>>University of California, Berkeley
>>---------------
>>2625 Durant Ave.
>>Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
>>ph.510.642.5240
>>fx.510.642.5269
>>
>>+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
>>
>>Rhizome.org is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of
>>the New Museum of Contemporary Art.
>>
>>Rhizome Rare is supported by grants from the Rockefeller Foundation, the
>>Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and with public funds from
>>the New York State Council on the Arts, a state agency.
>>
>>+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
>>
>>Rhizome Rare is filtered by Rhizome SuperUsers, a dedicated group of
>>volunteer editors. To learn more about becoming a Rhizome SuperUser,
>>please email editor@rhizome.org.
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this list, visit http://rhizome.org/subscribe .
>>
>>Subscribers to Rhizome Rare are subject to the terms set out in the
>>Member Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php.

--

Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269

DISCUSSION

Re: Metadata


Ah yes, capital idea. It's a little off the vocabularies discussion,
but well-worth folding in.

Source code will be, of course, probably the most useful thing to
preserve from the original digital work, other than perhaps specific
instructions on how to re-construct the work. Perhaps, as a first
step, artist submitting cloned work to the ArtBase could just include
their source code as one of the files they send. It's not exactly the
model of a sharable code-archive that is itself open-source (in the
sense that anyone could download and share code), but it's at least
an important piece of the preservation puzzle, and once the practice
is begun, then one can always build the other services (shareable,
tagging the code itself, etc) on top of say the ArtBase.

You bring up an interesting point in your original Rhizome post about
how it gets complicated when the work uses several pieces of code for
different components. I had proposed a ways back a metadata model
for describing digital works in such a way that they could be
re-created (the Media Art Notation System - see
http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/about_bampfa/formalnotation.pdf). This
model argues that you do indeed need a more granular level of
description of the multiple components of works if you are going to
try to preserve them for the long-term. In my mind, a simpler,
overall description of works results in a Registry of works as
opposed to a long-term Preservation Repository, for which more
in-depth metadata is just necessary. In that way too, one can connect
relevant bits of code (or other media files) to the appropriate
component of the work, along with descriptions.

The Media Art Notation System is my attempt to formalize the model
developed in the Variable Media questionnaire and projects. It occurs
to me too that Jon Ippolito has been working in the context of the
Open Art Network (three.org/openart/) and with Creative Commons to
address how to license open-source components of art works. That may
apply here too.

So, there is a line to think about: is the ArtBase a registry or a
true preservation repository, and if the latter, what metadata
*minimally* is required to support that? The metadata in the ArtBase
right now (the whole ball of wax, not just the vocabularies now) is
actually fairly simple and short. One upside to that is that like
simple standards such as HTML, it actually gets used, whereas there
are plans for much more complex repositories that never get built. I
would suggest that the ArtBase probably does need a more complex
metadata schema (at least for cloned works) in the long-term, but for
now, it's good to start simple and grow. So, two good areas that
might be improved soon could be the inclusion of source-code in
cloned objects (optional) and the improvement of the vocabularies (as
we've been discussing on-list). After that; Rhizome could perhaps
build in a) more preservation metadata (via something like the Media
Art Notation System) and b) a way to actually open up and share
collected code (via Open Art Network license, etc). But simplicity
means feasibility and early buy-in, then one can build complexity
over time.

Richard Rinehart

At 11:30 PM -0400 4/25/06, Pall Thayer wrote:
>Hi Richard,
>The suggestion generated a bit of discussion and the thread is available here:
>
>http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread 893&page=1#40140
>
>The suggestion was just for open-sourced code and didn't address
>proprietary software at all. The idea is that if the need or desire
>arises to reconstruct the work when technology has changed then the
>reconstruction could be based on the functionality of the original
>code rather than being based on some vague memories and screenshots.
>
>Pall
>
>On 25.4.2006, at 20:40, Richard Rinehart wrote:
>
>>Pall,
>>
>>Good idea. Did you go into how you'd get the source code for
>>proprietary software? Or how the legal issues might work out in
>>doing that? I'd be curious to know. Source code is really, REALLY,
>>nice to have for preservation purposes; I agree.
>>
>>Rick Rinehart
>>
>>>I just want to remind everyone that the original idea behind my
>>>proposition of extending the ArtBase to accept open-sourced code
>>>for projects was a way to bring 'preservation' back into the
>>>ArtBase which is being used more often to link to projects than to
>>>clone them. So if a project is based on a server-specific setup in
>>>a way that it can't be cloned and remain functional, cloning of
>>>the source-code would still provide an element of preservation in
>>>the ArtBase.
>>>
>>>Pall
>>>
>>>On 25.4.2006, at 15:39, Richard Rinehart wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hello Rhizomes,
>>>>
>>>>I'm writing to follow up on Lauren's email about the Rhizome
>>>>ArtBase and to kick off a conversation about the language we use
>>>>to describe works in the ArtBase.
>>>>
>>>>There are different types of metadata relevant to works in the
>>>>ArtBase and some are fairly straightforward such as Creators,
>>>>Dates, and Titles. But the type of metadata that is most
>>>>problematic and at the same time most community-driven is
>>>>descriptive metadata such as Type, Genre, and Keywords. The
>>>>data-values used to fill out those metadata are terms taken from
>>>>vocabularies (the lists of different types, genres, etc.) If you
>>>>have ever submitted a work to the ArtBase, you know what these
>>>>look like: Types include animation-art, audio-art, etc.; Genres
>>>>include abstract-art, allegory-art, etc; and Keywords include
>>>>access, animation, archive, etc. (a full list of Rhizome's
>>>>data-values/vocabularies follows below).
>>>>
>>>>Rhizome would like to update the vocabularies it uses for this
>>>>descriptive metadata. Rhizome has cited three reasons for
>>>>changing; the vocabularies are incomplete, the vocabularies are
>>>>however key as they are how visitors search the vast Rhizome
>>>>site, and lastly, but not least, there is no canon or
>>>>authoritative source for terms related to digital art, so Rhizome
>>>>can take this practical need and turn it into an opportunity to
>>>>engage a community discussion about vocabularies and to set an
>>>>example for others to follow. All metadata specific to one
>>>>discipline, but especially vocabularies, need to arise from the
>>>>community's practice and not be imposed from outside or the
>>>>descriptions and the artifacts being described will never quite
>>>>match up. It is also important to collaborate and coordinate with
>>>>other groups working on digital art metadata and preservation, so
>>>>that's another reason to have this conversation on RAW and why
>>>>Rhizome will also be convening people from the Variable Media,
>>>>Archiving the Avant Garde, and Canadian DOCAM projects to discuss
>>>>this as well.
>>>>
>>>>Some questions and considerations that might get the conversation started:
>>>>
>>>>1) Do Rhizome's vocabularies need to be compatible with other
>>>>metadata standards? If so, which, and how much?
>>>>
>>>>Thoughts: Many other disciplines and communities use what they
>>>>call "controlled" vocabularies or authoritative thesauri. For
>>>>instance the art world has used the Getty's Art and Architecture
>>>>Thesaurus for years
>>>>(http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/aat/).
>>>>Systems are then built using these vocab standards. If Rhizome
>>>>were in some way compatible with these standards, then new search
>>>>engines could search across distributed art resources online from
>>>>Getty databases to Rhizome's ArtBase ensuring that digital art is
>>>>not "ghettoized" because of incompatible languages.
>>>>Interoperability is important in a semantic as well as technical
>>>>sense, but luckily compatibility does not necessarily require
>>>>that one adopt the "authoritative" vocabulary completely, or
>>>>exclusively.
>>>>
>>>>2) What can we propose here that Rhizome can practically
>>>>accomplish given limited resources?
>>>>
>>>>The larger cultural world is cursed with a plethora of metadata
>>>>"standards" and vocabularies that are so complex that no one can
>>>>afford to implement them and thus they go unused and
>>>>interoperability remains a theoretical concept. We should be
>>>>smarter than that. A simple system that works and can be
>>>>realistically maintained is worth more than a complex solution
>>>>that never happens.
>>>>
>>>>3) Currently the metadata that uses vocabularies is divided into
>>>>type, genre, and keywords -- are these categories sufficient?
>>>>Should we add others?
>>>>
>>>>Thoughts: Many other disciplines and communities use metadata
>>>>categories similar to this. For instance, in various
>>>>art-world/museum metadata standards they use Genre to indicate a
>>>>broad category ("painting"), then Type to indicate a format
>>>>within the Genre ("watercolor"), and then Subject (keywords) to
>>>>indicate "intellectual access points" ("landscape") that people
>>>>will search on to find the record.
>>>>
>>>>4) Do we want to enhance/ elaborate/ add on to our existing descriptive
>>>>terms or keep the current controlled vocab as is, and make folksonomy also
>>>>an option?
>>>>
>>>>Thoughts: Can one use folksonomies or other dynamic systems to
>>>>keep a vocabulary fresh yet still retain some level of
>>>>compatibility with other standards?
>>>>
>>>>5) who is the artbase for? Who is its audience, and how does that
>>>>affect our re-design of the metadata.
>>>>
>>>>Thoughts: Related to this is the question of what the long-term
>>>>use of the ArtBase should or will be and how can we support that
>>>>with better vocabularies?
>>>>
>>>>So, let the games begin! What do you think?
>>>>
>>>>Richard Rinehart
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------
>>>>Rhizome ArtBase Vocabularies
>>>>
>>>>TYPE
>>>>The type field describes the abstract media type of the art object.
>>>>
>>>>-Animation-art work in which motion graphics play a significant role
>>>>-Audio-art work has strong audio component
>>>>-Game-art work is a game or involves gaming in significant ways
>>>>-Installation-art object documents a physical installation
>>>>-Performance-art object documents a performative art work
>>>>-Software-art work is an executable program or involves original
>>>>stand-alone software
>>>>-Video-art object uses Quicktime, RealVideo, or other time-based video
>>>>-Virtual-art work creates a 3D, immersive or otherwise virtual world
>>>>-Visual-art work is particularly graphical or especially visual in nature
>>>>-Text-art work is ASCII or otherwise text-based
>>>>
>>>>GENRE
>>>>The genre field describes the general category of your art object
>>>>defined through style, form, or content.
>>>>
>>>>-Abstract-art object is visually abstract
>>>>-Allegory-art object uses allegory or metaphor
>>>>-Anti-art-art object overtly rejects artistic conventions or codes
>>>>-Collaborative-art object was created by more than one person
>>>>-Collider-art object dynamically combines material from various sources
>>>>-Conceptual-art object is driven primarily by ideas
>>>>-Contextual-art object is site-specific, or requires a specific
>>>>situation to function
>>>>-Database-art object incorporates databases or archives
>>>>-Documentary-art object uses found material as evidence; art
>>>>object records events for posterity; art object uses documentary
>>>>data
>>>>-Event-art object is/was an event such as a performance or netcast
>>>>-Formalist-art object is primarily concerned with the aesthetics of form
>>>>-Generative-art object is created afresh for each viewing
>>>>according to certain contingent factors
>>>>-Historical-art object is about the recording or revealing of past events
>>>>-Homepage-art object is (or resembles) a personal website
>>>>-Information map-art object is about the visual display of
>>>>statistical or other quantitative information
>>>>-Narrative-art object tells a story
>>>>-Offline-art object has a major offline component
>>>>-Participatory-art object requires input from users
>>>>-Readymade-art object involves found material not originally
>>>>meant to be art
>>>>-Tactical-art object is example of tactical media; art object is
>>>>resistive, political or otherwise confrontational
>>>>-Telematic-art object uses distance communication, or allows for
>>>>remote manipulation of objects
>>>>
>>>>KEYWORDS
>>>>
>>>> access
>>>> animation
>>>> archive
>>>> art world
>>>> artificial life
>>>> audio
>>>> bio
>>>> body
>>>> broadcast
>>>> browser
>>>> CD-ROM
>>>> censorship
>>>> cinema
>>>> colonialism
>>>> commercialization
>>>> community
>>>> conference
>>>> corporate
>>>> death
>>>> design
>>>> desire
>>>> digital
>>>> disappearance
>>>> education
>>>> email
>>>> exhibition
>>>> film
>>>> fund
>>>> futurism
>>>> game
>>>> gender
>>>> globalization
>>>> identity
>>>> immersion
>>>> interact
>>>> interface
>>>> Internet
>>>> labor
>>>> language
>>>> live
>>>> machine
>>>> marginality
>>>> media activism
>>>> meme
>>>> memory
>>>> nature
>>>> net.art
>>>> network
>>>> nostalgia
>>>> performance
>>>> posthuman
>>>> postmodern
>>>> privacy
>>>> public space
>>>> publish
>>>> queer
>>>> radio
>>>> resistance
>>>> responsibility
>>>> robot
>>>> rumor
>>>> security
>>>> social space
>>>> space
>>>> surveillance
>>>> tactical media
>>>> technophobia
>>>> television
>>>> Third World
>>>> 3D
>>>> underground
>>>> utopia
>>>> video
>>>> virtual reality
>>>> VRML
>>>> War
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Richard Rinehart
>>>>---------------
>>>>Director of Digital Media
>>>>Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
>>>>bampfa.berkeley.edu
>>>>---------------
>>>>University of California, Berkeley
>>>>---------------
>>>>2625 Durant Ave.
>>>>Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
>>>>ph.510.642.5240
>>>>fx.510.642.5269
>>>>+
>>>>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>>>>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>>>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>>>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>>+
>>>>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>>>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Pall Thayer
>>>p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
>>>http://www.this.is/pallit
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>>Richard Rinehart
>>---------------
>>Director of Digital Media
>>Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
>>bampfa.berkeley.edu
>>---------------
>>University of California, Berkeley
>>---------------
>>2625 Durant Ave.
>>Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
>>ph.510.642.5240
>>fx.510.642.5269
>>+
>>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>+
>>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Pall Thayer
>p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
>http://www.this.is/pallit

--

Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269

DISCUSSION

Re: Metadata


Thanks Ryan,

You also brought up something I neglected to mention (I thought my
email too long already :) and that is vocabularies for "technology".
I'm just thinking out-loud that this might be the easiest metadata to
populate with vocab terms, because can't we just use MIME types for
this? Right now I think all the Rhizome "tech" terms are software
rather than hardware based, so it seems we could just solve that
little nugget by adopting a well-known and used existing standard, no?

Rick Rinehart

At 6:25 PM -0500 4/25/06, Ryan Griffis wrote:
>On Apr 25, 2006, at 2:39 PM, Richard Rinehart wrote:
>
>>1) Do Rhizome's vocabularies need to be compatible with other
>>metadata standards? If so, which, and how much?
>
>i would think a multi-tiered system would address a lot of Rob and
>other's (myself included) preference for folksonomic methods. having
>worked in situations where a more cohesive standard was needed, i
>also understand the function of a hierarchal meta-data system. this
>gets at the question of audiences as well. for many uses, a
>folksonomy system works great, but for others it's not the ideal.
>translations of those systems into multiple languages, for example
>can be very problematic in the most standardized of systems.
>in terms of the artbase, i would think that a folksonomic system
>works well for "keywords" (just like the tagging process already
>described) while the classification of "type" "genre" - i would add
>some other standards for "technology" and some contextual options
>for "geography" or something - could be something linked up to
>larger needs, whether it's the Getty or whatever.
>the hierarchal system however, seems like it would need to be
>managed based on a coherent and consistent, yet easily applied, set
>of rules, so that artists aren't subscribing a "type" (for example)
>that's only based on some idiosyncratic interpretation of "net.art"
>or "web art" thus foiling the purpose of standardization. i guess
>i'm saying that those properties of artbase works could/should be
>managed by some collective, responsible party (someone at Rhizome or
>a set of volunteers) rather than by the artists. let the
>artists/"localized" community deal with the folksonomy and tagging.
>the community tagging process (letting others attach keywords of
>relevance i.e. del.icio.us) could also be very useful here.
>i guess as an artist and someone who's had to go through lots of
>archives, i'm more invested as an artist in the keywords (the
>"intellectual access points") than the definitions of "type" or
>"genre" - i'm sure that for conservators however, notions of type,
>technology, etc are pretty crucial.
>just my $0.02, but thanks for including us all in the discussion.
>
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

--

Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269

DISCUSSION

Re: Metadata


Pall,

Good idea. Did you go into how you'd get the source code for
proprietary software? Or how the legal issues might work out in doing
that? I'd be curious to know. Source code is really, REALLY, nice to
have for preservation purposes; I agree.

Rick Rinehart

>I just want to remind everyone that the original idea behind my
>proposition of extending the ArtBase to accept open-sourced code for
>projects was a way to bring 'preservation' back into the ArtBase
>which is being used more often to link to projects than to clone
>them. So if a project is based on a server-specific setup in a way
>that it can't be cloned and remain functional, cloning of the
>source-code would still provide an element of preservation in the
>ArtBase.
>
>Pall
>
>On 25.4.2006, at 15:39, Richard Rinehart wrote:
>
>>Hello Rhizomes,
>>
>>I'm writing to follow up on Lauren's email about the Rhizome
>>ArtBase and to kick off a conversation about the language we use to
>>describe works in the ArtBase.
>>
>>There are different types of metadata relevant to works in the
>>ArtBase and some are fairly straightforward such as Creators,
>>Dates, and Titles. But the type of metadata that is most
>>problematic and at the same time most community-driven is
>>descriptive metadata such as Type, Genre, and Keywords. The
>>data-values used to fill out those metadata are terms taken from
>>vocabularies (the lists of different types, genres, etc.) If you
>>have ever submitted a work to the ArtBase, you know what these look
>>like: Types include animation-art, audio-art, etc.; Genres include
>>abstract-art, allegory-art, etc; and Keywords include access,
>>animation, archive, etc. (a full list of Rhizome's
>>data-values/vocabularies follows below).
>>
>>Rhizome would like to update the vocabularies it uses for this
>>descriptive metadata. Rhizome has cited three reasons for changing;
>>the vocabularies are incomplete, the vocabularies are however key
>>as they are how visitors search the vast Rhizome site, and lastly,
>>but not least, there is no canon or authoritative source for terms
>>related to digital art, so Rhizome can take this practical need and
>>turn it into an opportunity to engage a community discussion about
>>vocabularies and to set an example for others to follow. All
>>metadata specific to one discipline, but especially vocabularies,
>>need to arise from the community's practice and not be imposed from
>>outside or the descriptions and the artifacts being described will
>>never quite match up. It is also important to collaborate and
>>coordinate with other groups working on digital art metadata and
>>preservation, so that's another reason to have this conversation on
>>RAW and why Rhizome will also be convening people from the Variable
>>Media, Archiving the Avant Garde, and Canadian DOCAM projects to
>>discuss this as well.
>>
>>Some questions and considerations that might get the conversation started:
>>
>>1) Do Rhizome's vocabularies need to be compatible with other
>>metadata standards? If so, which, and how much?
>>
>>Thoughts: Many other disciplines and communities use what they call
>>"controlled" vocabularies or authoritative thesauri. For instance
>>the art world has used the Getty's Art and Architecture Thesaurus
>>for years
>>(http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/aat/).
>>Systems are then built using these vocab standards. If Rhizome were
>>in some way compatible with these standards, then new search
>>engines could search across distributed art resources online from
>>Getty databases to Rhizome's ArtBase ensuring that digital art is
>>not "ghettoized" because of incompatible languages.
>>Interoperability is important in a semantic as well as technical
>>sense, but luckily compatibility does not necessarily require that
>>one adopt the "authoritative" vocabulary completely, or exclusively.
>>
>>2) What can we propose here that Rhizome can practically accomplish
>>given limited resources?
>>
>>The larger cultural world is cursed with a plethora of metadata
>>"standards" and vocabularies that are so complex that no one can
>>afford to implement them and thus they go unused and
>>interoperability remains a theoretical concept. We should be
>>smarter than that. A simple system that works and can be
>>realistically maintained is worth more than a complex solution that
>>never happens.
>>
>>3) Currently the metadata that uses vocabularies is divided into
>>type, genre, and keywords -- are these categories sufficient?
>>Should we add others?
>>
>>Thoughts: Many other disciplines and communities use metadata
>>categories similar to this. For instance, in various
>>art-world/museum metadata standards they use Genre to indicate a
>>broad category ("painting"), then Type to indicate a format within
>>the Genre ("watercolor"), and then Subject (keywords) to indicate
>>"intellectual access points" ("landscape") that people will search
>>on to find the record.
>>
>>4) Do we want to enhance/ elaborate/ add on to our existing descriptive
>>terms or keep the current controlled vocab as is, and make folksonomy also
>>an option?
>>
>>Thoughts: Can one use folksonomies or other dynamic systems to keep
>>a vocabulary fresh yet still retain some level of compatibility
>>with other standards?
>>
>>5) who is the artbase for? Who is its audience, and how does that
>>affect our re-design of the metadata.
>>
>>Thoughts: Related to this is the question of what the long-term use
>>of the ArtBase should or will be and how can we support that with
>>better vocabularies?
>>
>>So, let the games begin! What do you think?
>>
>>Richard Rinehart
>>
>>----------------------------
>>Rhizome ArtBase Vocabularies
>>
>>TYPE
>>The type field describes the abstract media type of the art object.
>>
>>-Animation-art work in which motion graphics play a significant role
>>-Audio-art work has strong audio component
>>-Game-art work is a game or involves gaming in significant ways
>>-Installation-art object documents a physical installation
>>-Performance-art object documents a performative art work
>>-Software-art work is an executable program or involves original
>>stand-alone software
>>-Video-art object uses Quicktime, RealVideo, or other time-based video
>>-Virtual-art work creates a 3D, immersive or otherwise virtual world
>>-Visual-art work is particularly graphical or especially visual in nature
>>-Text-art work is ASCII or otherwise text-based
>>
>>GENRE
>>The genre field describes the general category of your art object
>>defined through style, form, or content.
>>
>>-Abstract-art object is visually abstract
>>-Allegory-art object uses allegory or metaphor
>>-Anti-art-art object overtly rejects artistic conventions or codes
>>-Collaborative-art object was created by more than one person
>>-Collider-art object dynamically combines material from various sources
>>-Conceptual-art object is driven primarily by ideas
>>-Contextual-art object is site-specific, or requires a specific
>>situation to function
>>-Database-art object incorporates databases or archives
>>-Documentary-art object uses found material as evidence; art object
>>records events for posterity; art object uses documentary data
>>-Event-art object is/was an event such as a performance or netcast
>>-Formalist-art object is primarily concerned with the aesthetics of form
>>-Generative-art object is created afresh for each viewing according
>>to certain contingent factors
>>-Historical-art object is about the recording or revealing of past events
>>-Homepage-art object is (or resembles) a personal website
>>-Information map-art object is about the visual display of
>>statistical or other quantitative information
>>-Narrative-art object tells a story
>>-Offline-art object has a major offline component
>>-Participatory-art object requires input from users
>>-Readymade-art object involves found material not originally meant to be art
>>-Tactical-art object is example of tactical media; art object is
>>resistive, political or otherwise confrontational
>>-Telematic-art object uses distance communication, or allows for
>>remote manipulation of objects
>>
>>KEYWORDS
>>
>> access
>> animation
>> archive
>> art world
>> artificial life
>> audio
>> bio
>> body
>> broadcast
>> browser
>> CD-ROM
>> censorship
>> cinema
>> colonialism
>> commercialization
>> community
>> conference
>> corporate
>> death
>> design
>> desire
>> digital
>> disappearance
>> education
>> email
>> exhibition
>> film
>> fund
>> futurism
>> game
>> gender
>> globalization
>> identity
>> immersion
>> interact
>> interface
>> Internet
>> labor
>> language
>> live
>> machine
>> marginality
>> media activism
>> meme
>> memory
>> nature
>> net.art
>> network
>> nostalgia
>> performance
>> posthuman
>> postmodern
>> privacy
>> public space
>> publish
>> queer
>> radio
>> resistance
>> responsibility
>> robot
>> rumor
>> security
>> social space
>> space
>> surveillance
>> tactical media
>> technophobia
>> television
>> Third World
>> 3D
>> underground
>> utopia
>> video
>> virtual reality
>> VRML
>> War
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>>Richard Rinehart
>>---------------
>>Director of Digital Media
>>Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
>>bampfa.berkeley.edu
>>---------------
>>University of California, Berkeley
>>---------------
>>2625 Durant Ave.
>>Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
>>ph.510.642.5240
>>fx.510.642.5269
>>+
>>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>+
>>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Pall Thayer
>p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
>http://www.this.is/pallit

--

Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269

DISCUSSION

Re: Metadata


Thanks David, Rob,

Folksonomies are of course interesting and appropriate, but
exclusively? Also, are there any existing folksonomies that Rhizome
could build upon, or would either of you suggest starting from
scratch?

I'm curious about the statement you made below Rob, that any
folksonomy can be made compatible with standards using a good
thesaurus. Do you have an example of this? Whether or not one goes
with standards, folksonomies, or a hybrid model, knowing how to map
between them would be terrific. Although, if one did use a hybrid
model, then that would itself create the mapping (each work would
have both standardized terms and folksonomic terms applied, so
averaging among many works, you'd be able to tell what terms mapped
to each other.

Your note on the AAT is very (VERY) well taken. Yes, the AAT is not
yet a good resource for terms for new media art, yet it is the single
standard used most by museums and other organizations collecting new
media art. So, one strategy would be to ignore the AAT as irrelevant;
but another might be to work with the Getty to update and improve the
AAT with relevant terms so that (digital) community-specific practice
becomes (museum) community specific practice rather than creating a
ghetto (though I'm not sure which is the ghetto of the other here :)
In the past, the Getty unit that had maintained the AAT had expressed
interest in updating the AAT based on feedback from the relevant
community (us).

Rick Rinehart

At 9:50 PM +0100 4/25/06, Rob Myers wrote:
>I think folksonomy is best. Tagging works, people understand it, it
>doesn't take lots of resources up-front, and it can be made
>compatible with other standards using a good thesaurus. :-)
>
>A quick check of the AAT for some common terms (generative, net.art,
>spam) shows that it is not useful for work Rhizome artbase will
>actually need to describe.
>
>Imagine a tag cloud of the artbase. :-)
>
>- Rob.
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

--

Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269