Ingest a large range metadata formats (XML based or Dublin Core, METS, MPEG-21, etc.) coming from different channels (http, ftp, oai-pmh, etc.) and content files >500 ff. Perform human content enrichment, translations, validation; comments; social media, rating; promoting; publication; corrections; assessment, etc. Perform automated activities, technical parameters (duration, size, etc.), descriptors, indexing, translations, VIP names, geonames, LOD, assessment, IPR , verification IPR modelling, assignment and verification. Harmonising the activities of human and automated processing Scale up of the back office architecture to cope with a large number of transactions Support and model one or more workflows

1. Institutional Services and Tools for Content,
Metadata and IPR Management
Pierfrancesco Bellini, Ivan Bruno, Paolo Nesi, Michela Paolucci
DISIT, Distributed Systems and Internet Technology Lab,
Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Informazione, Università degli Studi di Firenze,
Firenze, Italy
{pbellini,ivanb,paolucci}@dsi.unifi.it, paolo.nesi@unifi.it
Abstract — Multimedia services need to be supported by content,
metadata and workflow management systems to efficiently
manage huge amount of content items and metadata production
as in the case of cultural institutions. Online digital libraries and
cultural heritage institutions and the other portals of publishers
need an integrated multimedia back office in order to aggregate
content and provide them to national and international
aggregators. Different technologies need to be integrated to
improve existing content management and workflow systems in
order to efficiently organize and manage large amount of data
and processes to cope with them. The aim of this paper is to
formalise and discuss about requirements, design and validation
of an institutional aggregator for metadata and content, coping
with IPR models for providing content towards Europeana, the
European international aggregator. ECLAP, the European
Collected Library of Artistic Performance, has been realised
respecting all these features and taking into account the problems
connected to the cultural heritage cross media content on
Performing Arts domain. In order to establish the quality of the
institutional services and tools for content described, a set of
measures have been made and reported.
Keywords: institutional archive; content aggregator; grid
computing; workflow; metadata enrichment; metadata validation;
semantic computing; IPR management.
I. INTRODUCTION
Multimedia services need to be supported by content,
metadata and workflow management systems to efficiently
manage huge amount of content items and metadata
production. With the introduction of web 2.0/3.0, and thus of
data mining and semantic computing, including social media
and mobile technologies most of the digital libraries and
museum services became rapidly obsolete and were
constrained to rapidly change. In most cases, the cultural
institutions see their content ingested, promoted, distributed
and exploited by final users via online commercial partners
(e.g., Google, Amazon, YouTube), that may take benefits to
commercial resell and/or via advertising. Thus the online
digital libraries and cultural heritage institutions such as ACM,
PubMed and IEEE and the other portals of publishers need an
integrated multimedia back office. In Europe and in US, most
of the cultural heritage institutions aggregate content and
provide them to national and international aggregators such as
Europeana in Europe [1], Library of Congress in US [2].
Europeana has more than 24 million of contents coming from
about 2200 different content Providers, and about 100 content
aggregators. Specific workflow and metadata processing,
enrichment (name resolving, date analysis, linking with open
data, creation of relationships, etc.) are needed to cope with the
content aggregation and publication. To this end, specific
solutions and architectures are needed that present some
aspects or can be integrated with traditional workflow
management systems [3], [4]. In [15] a visual tool for defining
authorization workflow models for e-commerce application has
been proposed.
In this paper, the requirements, the design and the results of
the ECLAP aggregator of Europeana are reported. ECLAP
stands for European Collected Library of Artistic Performance,
[10]. It has been started as an European Commission project
CIP-ICT-PSP.2009.2.2, Grant Agreement N°250481. ECLAP
has been designed and developed to ingest content coming
from 35 different cultural international institutions in 13
languages thus creating a considerable online archive for all the
performing arts in Europe [12]. Until now, it has ingested and
processed about 180.000 objects (images, document, video,
audio, 3D, Braille, e-books, etc.) with 940.000 items (pages,
images, video, audio).
The paper is organized as follows. In section II, general
requirements of the back office and tools for cultural heritage
content aggregator are reported. Section III provides ECLAP
overview describing the architecture and ECLAP institutional
services and tools, while a report on tools usage is shown in
Section IV. Conclusions are drawn in section V.
II. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The main requirements of the back office tool for cultural
heritage content aggregator are reported as follows. The back
office has to be capable to:
1) Ingest a large range metadata formats (XML based or
Dublin Core, METS, MPEG-21, etc.) coming from different
channels (http, ftp, oai-pmh, etc.). To ingest implies to get the
metadata and content, link them together, collect them on a
suitable storage, and ingest IPR information. The ingestion
may be performed from web pages uploads, and/or from batch
processing and/or crawling.
2) Perform human content enrichment, such as metadata
translations, validation; addition of comments; social media
promotion; voting/rating; promoting; publication to other
portals; editing and performing corrections; quality
assessment, etc. Multiple activities for users imply to have the
possibility of granting different authorizations.

2. 3) Perform automated activities, such as: estimation of
technical parameters (duration, size, etc.), extraction of
descriptors, indexing, automated translations, searching for
VIP names, geonames resolutions, linking with LOD,
metadata assessment (completeness and consistency [6],
[14]), IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) verification. Among
these activities, it has to be included the content adaptation
and repurpose according to a large set of the distribution
channels. For example, ingesting video in any format and
producing the multiple formats for distribution on different
devices.
4) Harmonising the activities of human and automated
processing among the above mentioned. For example,
identifying when the human actions are needed, taking trace of
the performed manual activities, blocking the humans when
the automated elaboration has locked the resource.
5) Scale up of the back office architecture to cope with
large number of transactions on metadata information and
activities in the back office. In most cases, the back office has
to be capable to process large data sets per day, and thus the
execution of massive processing on distributed resources as
GRID is needed [7].
6) Support and model one or more workflows according
to each specific content life cycle. Workflow management also
means to have different user roles for different activities. For
example, not all ingested content is ready to be published at
the same time. Thus, some users may be entitled to move
forward the status of their content, while other may need
approval.
7) Cope with the IPR modelling, assignment and
verification. It also implies that the IPR model may regulate
uses/accesses to the digital content, and the exploitation of
rights about the content manipulation and reuse according to
the owner rights [11].
Moreover, a large number of detailed requirements have
been identified as reported in [8]. Among the additional
requirements, we noticed the need of (i) logging and keeping
trace of metadata versioning: to keep trace of the work done
and changes performed, (ii) formalizing and managing a
number of different roles / capabilities to be assigned to the
ECLAP users (i.e., enricher, publisher and validator), (iii)
providing user accessible tools for: multilingual metadata
editing, IPR managements, massive content editing of some
specific object status associated with metadata (workflow
status, IPR, public/non-public, tags, groups, etc.).
III. ECLAP OVERVIEW
The ECLAP architecture for content and metadata
management (see Figure 1) consists of three main areas:
Metadata Ingestion Server, ACXP back office services [7] and
ECLAP Portal. The Metadata Ingestion Server, which collects
metadata provided by digital archives and libraries (realised by
using MINT metadata mapping tool, [8]). There the metadata
coming in different schemas are mapped according to the
ECLAP semantic model and are made available through the
OAI-PMH protocol. ACXP back office services provide
automated procedures for content and metadata processing
(harvesting, ingestion, analysis, production, adaptation,
validation, publishing, etc.). The ECLAP portal is the Drupal
based front end, which provides front-office tools to work on
content and metadata, IPR models definition, content
management and Europeana publishing. ECLAP provides a
social media style front end service (BPN, Best Practice
Network) with more than 2200 users; directly linked via
service oriented interface to the more complex back office
(based on AXCP) capable to really cope with the complexity
of managing a complex workflow and content processing and
ingestion. The most important activities addressed by ECLAP
are performed in the automated back office.
Figure 1 - ECLAP architecture
In order to better understand the content and metadata
management, it is useful to describe the ECLAP Overall
Scenario in terms of workflow, rules, procedures, etc., which
each Content Provider follows to publish content on ECLAP
and then provide it to Europeana (see Figure 2). All content
managed in the ECLAP are associated with a specific
workflow. In event of Europeana based ECLAP workflow,
content has to be: (i) uploaded/ingested; (ii) enriched through
metadata (some metadata must be sent to Europeana and
others are necessary to describe and manage the content in the
ECLAP); (iii) associated with an IPR Model (through the IPR
Wizard, as described in next sections) [9].
The content uploaded/ingested is initially available on the
ECLAP BPN with maximum restrictions, while metadata are
immediately available for indexing and searching for all kind
of ECLAP users. Only content presenting a (i) sufficient set of
metadata (e.g., Europeana mandatory metadata) and (ii) IPR
information license defined (one from the set admitted by
“europeana:rights” in [13]), can be published on Europeana,
[1].
Front office and back office tools of ECLAP allow
covering the whole content life-cycle. The AXCP grid solution
adopted provides a scalable back office capable to cope with a
huge amount of content and metadata processing capabilities
and features [7].
Ingestion and Harvesting
ECLAP
Metadata
Ingestion
Server
O
A
I
P
M
H Resource Injection
Content
Retrieval
Database +
semantic database
Library
partnerLibrary
partner
Archive
partnerArchive
partnerArchive
partner
ECLAP Social
Service Portal
IPR Wizard/CAS
AXCP back office services
Content Analysis
Content Indexing and Search
Metadata Editor
Content Aggregation and Play
Content Processing
Metadata
Export
Semantic Computing and Sugg.
Content Upload Management
Content Upload
Content Management
Social Network
connections
Metadata
E-Learning Support

3. Figure 2 - ECLAP Flow Overall Scenario
A. Front office tools
The ECLAP front office allow users covering the whole
content life-cycle: content upload, enrichment, validation, IPR
modelling and editing, content and metadata assessment and
management, publication, etc.
WEB based content upload allows users uploading content
on the portal through the Upload web page. The page shows a
form where users input: DCMI metadata consisting of a set of
Dublin Core fields; Taxonomy as multiple classification terms
selection; Groups assignment (ECLAP Groups); Resource data
by selecting one or multiple files from user’s HD device or a
valid URL (via http or ftp); Workflow type associated with the
life-cycle of content and IPR model, if accessible.
Metadata Editor is the tool for editing, enriching and
validating metadata. According to the user role, the editor
works in the “enrichment mode” or in “validation mode”,
respectively for those enabled users. Metadata editor allows
editing any kind of metadata organized in specific panels to
work on. All changes made on metadata are tracked to
maintain the history of changes and who made it and when.
IPR wizard tool allows creating IPR Models that formalize
the owner rights related to publishing content online in the
ECLAP context. The IPR Logic Model implemented takes
decisions for the IPR Managers according to the relationships:
among user roles and among permissions [9]. The IPR
manager has just to select one or more permissions for a user
role that he/she wants to associate with an IPR Model (and
therefore to a set of contents) and the wizard automatically
selects also the permissions implied by those chosen (e.g.
download imply play, see Figure 3 for the list of permissions).
When some restrictions are applied Creative Commons
Licenses [10] cannot be associated with the IPR Model, so the
user can choose the license from one of the restricted licenses
allowed by Europeana (“Unknown copyright status” or “Right
Reserved – Restricted access”). In ECLAP, many different set
of content permissions (rights) can be imposed by the content
owners, which are the ECLAP Content Providers. For
example: content and metadata upload methods; metadata
standards and formats; IPR on content (licenses, permissions,
etc.); collection topics; etc. Permissions managed on the
ECLAP Portal can be referred to the following aspects:
 access to the content (e.g., the content can be accessible
via progressive download and/or download)
 user device (e.g., the content can be played via a PC
and/or a mobile device, iPad, etc.)
 content resolution (e.g., the content can be accessible only
in a reduced Low Resolution and/or in High resolution).
Figure 3 - ECLAP Permissions
Content Management tool allows users to manage contents
and publish them to Europeana and to perform massive editing
on large set of content elements.
B. Back office services
The ECLAP back-office services consists of a set of grid
processes that run automated workflow processes both on a
single and on multiple contents.
Automated ingestion – It ingests metadata and content
coming from ECLAP partners and Digital Archives and from
the external metadata mapping tool MINT. The process allows
ingesting both massively and singularly metadata and digital
resources. When resources are big file, they are provided by
using physical device. In this case, ECLAP just starts with
metadata ingestion and when the digital resources are
available, the joining is performed.
Content production and adaptation - This process works
with the digital resource and metadata uploaded via web or
ingested. Metadata and digital resource are retrieved from the
CMS or the storage area or downloaded from the provided
URL. Incoming metadata (Dublin Core, Taxonomy, Groups,
Performing Arts metadata, workflow type, user) are enriched
with technical metadata built by analysing the digital resource:
(i) content format (document, audio, video, image,
crossmedia), (ii) content type (file format), (iii) structural
information (size, duration, number of pages). The produced
enriched metadata and digital resource are aggregated and
published in the publication database. Metadata are indexed to
make the content ready for access on the portal. The
production process works also when the digital resource has to
be replaced with a new one (Update). To make the incoming
digital resource accessible by different devices Content
Adaptation processes are exploited: (i) Content adaptation to
different resolutions produces content accessible by different
devices (iPhone, iPad, Android, Windows Phone, etc. and on

4. the ECLAP portal, any browser.); (ii) Video adaptation
produces the Low, Medium and High Definition versions of a
video; (iii) Metadata Translation translates Dublin Core
metadata and missing metadata in different languages by using
tool or web service for text translation.
Content management - During the life-cycle of content,
massive actions on content could be needed: changes in the
workflow status, changes in the metadata, addition of details
in the metadata sets, etc. Specific actions are also needed to
maintain and manage the content and work both on single
content and multiple such as: delete content, update metadata,
and publish content uploaded by common users.
ECLAP back-office services and front-office tools work
both on content and metadata. However, such processes have
to work in concurrency: back-office services could access and
process content in parallel to the user activities on the front-
end. Activities of translation, enrichment, validation, IPR
definition and assessment cannot be performed by more than
one process at time on the same content. On the other hand,
sequential processing is too expensive and time consuming to
sustain the content workflow and ingestion. In ECLAP,
several thousands of new content per day have to be
processed. To this end, a workflow state diagram has been
modelled, formalized and implemented. Therefore, to manage
the concurrency and to guarantee a safety access to the content
a mechanism of lock-unlock access has been defined. The
general workflow state diagram is coded as described in
Figure 4.
Figure 4 - ECLAP Workflow diagram
C. User Roles and Workflow Model
The front-office tools have to allow working on metadata
in different ways. In order to implement am high quality
content enrichment process, each specific activity has to be
granted to specific people according to their skill, language
and the identification of the institutional Content Provider
(CPID). Moreover, the solution has to keep trace of each
single metadata change to have the evidence of the work
performed and eventually recover wrong situations. To this
end, the following user roles have been defined with their
parameters:
 WFIPR (CPID): authorizes the definition and validation
of IPR models, and IPR assignment to the content of the
CPID; by using the IPR Wizard and during the Upload
for the IPR Model Assignment.
 WFENRICHER (CPID, {languages}): authorizes the
metadata enrichment and changes in the specified
languages (add, edit metadata).
 WFVALIDATOR (CPID, {languages}): authorizes the
validation of the metadata for the identified language. The
metadata fields can be singularly validated until the object
may pass the whole approval phase.
 WFPUBLISHER (CPID): to take the final decision for
publishing on ECLAP and on Europeana. The publishing
of single or groups of content can be performed by using
the Content Management Tool and AXCP, together
with much other functionalities, plus eventual new actions
to be programmed on the same tools.
Back-office services are not associated with a specific user
role since they are performed as root user by rules on AXCP
computing grid background automated processes on content
and metadata.
IV. REPORT ON TOOLS USAGE
In this section, the results about the ECLAP back office
activities performed on the content, metadata and IPR until
April 2013 is reported. This service allows users and
automated workflow processes to interoperate securely and to
increase the quality and accessibility of content and metadata,
without any creation of conflicts each other. It is currently in
use by 31 institutions. The number of state transitions and
their distribution in the time period put in evidence the whole
activity of the portal on content and metadata and allow
analysing singularly both the back-office and the user
activities. Some results are reported in the temporal domain
considering the “month” as a time period unit.
A. Workflow Users
Actually, there are 29 workflow qualified users. Each user
may have single or multiple user roles (grant authorization).
The workflow user roles are distributed as: 24 enrichers
(WFENRICHER), 6 validators (WFVALIDATOR), 23 IPR
users (WFIPR) and 9 publishers (WFPUBLISHER).
B. Workflow Transitions
At current date, 706,052 workflow transitions have been
handled for 117,861 content items with an average of 6
transitions per content and a maximum of 104 transitions for a
single content. These transitions were performed in 653 days
with an average of 1,014 transitions per day and a maximum
of 13,162 transitions in one day, with a maximum of 14
different virtual nodes in the AXCP grid, on DISIT Cloud.
TABLE I. DISTRIBUTION OF WORKFLOW TRANSITIONS
From To Number of Transitions
'Uploaded' 'Under-AXCP' 179912
'Under-AXCP' 'Uploaded' 179912
'Proposed (creation)' 'Uploaded' 117861
UNDER-AXCP UPLOADED
UNDER-IPR
UNDER-
ENRICH
UNDER-
VALIDATION
UNDER-
APPROVAL
PUBLISHED
WFIPR
By IPR wizard
IPR edit
IPR done
Upload
rule
Metadata
edit
Automated
enrich rule
Assessment
rule
Final publication
rule
WFENRICHER
By Metadata
Editor
Translations,
Content update/adaptation,
Metadata analysis & validation
By AXCP Backoffice
WFVALIDATOR
By Metadata
Editor
WFPUBLISHER
Manually or
by AXCP Backoffice
Validation
request
PROPOSED
Validation
done not
approved
Upload
via form
Ingestion rule
Administrative
database
Publishing database
Publish to
Europeana
Enrichment
done
Enrichment
done
By AXCP Backoffice
Moderated
Upload
Professional & Institutions
Upload

5. 'Uploaded' 'Under-Approval' 113549
'Under-Approval' 'Published' 111362
'Uploaded' 'Under-IPR' 929
'Under-IPR' 'Uploaded' 929
'Uploaded' 'Under-Enrichment' 611
'Under-Enrichment' 'Uploaded' 611
'Under-Approval' 'Uploaded' 212
'Uploaded' 'Under-Validation' 38
'Under-Validation' 'Uploaded' 38
'Published' 'Uploaded' 3
C. Back-Office services
The back-office services consist of a set of grid processes
that run periodically automated workflow processes both on a
single and on multiple contents.
1) Content and Metadata Ingestion
The number of content ingested and processed by the back-
office has been 106,525 corresponding to the UPLOADED
workflow state of content.
2) Metadata Analysis
Metadata analysis for assessment or automated translation
performs a transition to the UNDER-AXCP in order to lock
the content and avoid that a user could be access to it for
manual editing or validation. In total, 179,912 of these
transitions were performed.
3) Metadata Validation
Every time content passed the metadata analysis the back-
office performs a transition to the UNDER-APPROVAL. In
total, 113,549 of these transitions were performed.
4) Content Publication
Every time the back-office performs the publication of content
in the UNDER-APPROVAL workflow state it performs a new
transition to the final state: PUBLISHED In total, 107,598 of
these transitions were performed.
D. Front-Office tools
In this section the analysis of the activity performed by
users via front-office tools is reported.
1) Web Page Upload
11336 content has been manually uploaded by users via the
Web Page Upload. Once uploaded the process is passed to the
back-office.
2) Metadata Editor
In order to evaluate the usage of Metadata Editor for the
enrichment and validation activities, both the number of
workflow transitions from UPLOADED to UNDER-ENRICH
and from UPLOADED to UNDER-VALIDATION have been
considered. The former transition gives a measure of manual
enrichment activity, while the latter of the manual validation
activity. The transitions related to enrichment were 611, and
38 for validation. Figure 5 reports the distribution in time of
the enrichment activity.
3) IPR Wizard, IPR definition model
ECLAP IPR Wizard is largely used by more than 35
partners in Europe. To evaluate the usage of IPR Wizard, the
number of workflow transitions from UPLOADED to
UNDER-IPR over time have been tracked. The transitions were
929, and their distribution is reported in the Figure 6.
Comparing Figures 5 and 6, it is evident that the IPR tool has
been much more used than the metadata editing tool. This is
due to the fact that, in most cases the content metadata where
ingested by stable institutional databases and archives, while
the IPR model was missing on those archives; and Europeana
constrained them to formalized the IPR aspect before the
content submission.
Figure 5 - Enrichment Activities
Figure 6 - IPR Wizard Activities
For the IPR aspects, 67 different IPR models/licenses have
been used. 40 of them are restrictive not public models, while
27 are public models allowing the full content access. Most
content providers used 1, 2 or 3 different IPR models/licenses
for their content, while a few partners used 4, 8 or 12 models.
Figure 7 reports he number of files used per IPR model. It can
be seen that the most diffuse two models cover more than the
one half of the whole content collection. On the other hand, the
semantic flexibility of the IPR model proposed allowed to cope
with many different needs of the content owners that impose
the IPR according to legal rights they can really provide.
Figure 7 - Statistics on IPR Models.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0
50
100
150
200
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67
Public Not Public

6. The 68% of content is associated with a public IPR model.
Regarding the 30 restrictive IPR models defined by a Content
Provider, in 11 cases they restricted the access to only
educational group users and in 6 cases restricted the access to
group users only (educational and not educational). Moreover,
23 models have been used to not allow the download of the
digital resource for some kind of resource type (regardless of
the user type).
TABLE II. IPR MODELS ALLOWING PERMISSIONS BY USER TYPE
Permission
User type
public group educ./research
only play/access 11 13 19
download & play 3 8 11
no permission 19 12 4
Table II reports, for the three user types (public, group and
educational), how many IPR models allow only play/access of
the digital resource or allow the download and play of it or no
permission are provided. It can be seen that in most cases the
models are used to restrict access from the public users (19
over 30) and to limit the download of the resource.
4) Content Management Tool
To evaluate the usage of Content Management tool for
publication activity we measured the number of workflow
transitions from UNDER-APPROVAL to PUBLISHED made
by partners. The transitions were 3764 and distributed by
month as reported in Figure 8.
Figure 8 - Publication Activities.
V. CONCLUSION
The paper discussed about requirements, design and validation
of ECLAP which is an institutional aggregator for metadata
and content coping with IPR models for providing metadata
towards Europeana, the European international aggregator. The
proposed solution takes into account issues connected to the
cultural heritage cross media content on Performing Arts
domain and integrates front office tools and an automated
back-office based on a Grid. The solution allows to cope with
high quality and provides large scale multimedia services to
manage huge amount of content and metadata, coming in turn
from several national and local institutions: museum, archives,
content providers. Finally, the usage analysis puts in evidence
the whole activities of ECLAP on content, metadata and IPR
until April 2013. It underlines that the huge activity on content
and metadata aggregation, analysis and validation to match the
Europeana requirements has been mainly automated and
performed by the back-office, thus allowing to keep content
processing cheap and sustainable. Regarding the front office
side, the most used tools by content providers have been
associated with IPR, namely IPR Wizard and the Content
Management since they allow users to finalise the rights and to
provide a connection of the content versus Europeana. Most of
the metadata provided were already in a good shape and less
than the 1% of content has been corrected from that point of
view. On the other hand, the IPR details requested by
Europeana constrained the content provider to associate to
the100% of the content a new IPR model. This huge effort has
been kept under control by exploiting the IPR Model, and
applying only 67 models to the whole set of more than 120.000
different content coming from more than 35 different
collections and institutions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors want to thank all the partners involved in
ECLAP, and the European Commission for funding ECLAP in
the Theme CIP-ICT-PSP.2009.2.2, Grant Agreement No.
250481.
REFERENCES
[1] Europeana, http://www.europeana.eu
[2] The Library of Congress, http://www.loc.gov
[3] Yu, J., & Buyya, R.. A taxonomy of workflow management systems for
grid computing. Journal of Grid Computing, 3(3-4), 171-200, 2005
[4] W.M.P. van der Aalst and K.M. van Hee. Workflow Management:
Models, Methods, and Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA,
2002.
[5] European Library of Artistic Performance, ECLAP,
http://www.eclap.eu/
[6] Bellini E., Nesi P. "Metadata Quality assessment tool for Open Access
Cultural Heritage institutional repositories", Proc. of the ECLAP 2013
conference, 2nd Int. Conf. on Information Technologies for Performing
Arts, Media Access and Entertainment, Springer Verlag LNCS, 2013.
[7] Bellini P., Bruno I., Cenni D., Nesi P., "Micro grids for scalable media
computing and intelligence on distributed scenarious", IEEE
Multimedia, 18 Aug. 2011, IEEE Computer Society Digital Library,
ISSN: 1070-986X.
[8] “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-
88094ce363e2
[9] Bellini P., Nesi P., Paolucci M. (2013). IPR Management Models for
Cultural Heritage on ECLAP Best Practice Network, IEEE International
Conference on Communications, 9-13 June, Budapest, Hungary.
[10] Creative Commons, http://creativecommons.org
[11] Wang X., “MPEG ‐ 21 rights expression language: Enabling
interoperable digital rights management,” IEEE Multimedia, 11(4):84–
87, 2004
[12] ECLAP Partners. List and information on ECLAP Partners available at:
http://www.eclap.eu/drupal/?q=node/3578
[13] ‘Guidelines for the europeana:rights metadata element’, v4.0 – 20, 9
February 2012, http://pro.europeana.eu/documents/900548/0d423921-
23e0-45fa-82a4-2ac72b3e6f38
[14] Park Jung-Ran, Metadata quality in digital repositories: A survey of the
current state of the art, “Cataloging & classification quarterly”, vol.
47, nos. 3-4 (April 2009), p. 213-228
[15] S.K. Chang et al, “Visual Authorization Modeling with Applications to
Electronic Commerce”, IEEE Multimedia, (2003), Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.
44-54.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400