Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report

DE6.1.3 - V

ECLAP projec

E
Version: 0
Date: 29/0
Project Tit
Project Nu
Deliverabl
Deliverabl
Work-Pack
Nature of t
Status: fina
Contractua
Approve fo
Finally app
Actual Dat
Document
Email addr
Affiliation
Authors:
 Iva
Validation an
ct
UROP
A
Valid
0.4
05/2013
tle: ECLAP
umber: ICT-
e Number:
e Type: pub
kage contrib
the Delivera
al, closed
al Date of D
or quality co
proved by c
te of Delive
responsabl
ress: ivanb@
acronym: D
an Bruno (D
nd service op
PEAN
ARTIS
dation
-PSP-25048
DE2.2.1
blic
buting to the
able: docum
Delivery: 31/
ontrol by: 1
coordinator:
ery: 29/05/2
e: Ivan Bru
@dsi.unifi.it
DSI DINFO
DSI)
ptimisation
- E
N COL
STIC P
www
Grant Ag
D
n and
1
e Deliverab
ment
/04/2013
5/05/2013
29/05/2013
013
no
t
O DISIT
ECL
LECT
PERF
w.ECLA
greement N
DE6.1
servi
ble: WP2
3
LAP
TED L
FORM
AP.eu
No 250481
.3
ice op
LIBRA
MANCE
ptimis
ARY O
E
sation
1
OF
1

DE6.1.3 - V

ECLAP projec

 Pie
 Mic
Revision
delegated t
Revision
V 0.1
V 0.2
V 0.3
V 0.4
Stateme
This deliv
Acknowled
appropriate
Catalog
Title
Identifier.de
Identifier.IS
Creators
Subject
Description
Keywords
Publisher
Date
Format
Type
Language
Citation
Author(s) n
univocally d
ECLAP
the docum
NoDerivs 3.
attribution
http://creat
Validation an
ct
erfrancesco B
chela Paolu
n History:
to someone
n D
0
2
2
2
ent of or
erable cont
gement of p
citation, quo
gue:
Valida
e DE6.1.
SBN
Ivan Br
Conten
Update
procedu
Metada
Librari
ECLAP
28/05/2
Docum
DOC
EN
n Guidel
name Surnam
determined o
P Copyri
ent is Publi
.0 Unported
is given
tivecommon

nd service op
Bellini (DS
ucci (DSI)
: (only for
else)
Date
05/05/2013
27/05/2013
28/05/2013
29-5-2013
riginality
tains origin
previously p
otation or bo
ation and serv
.3
runo, Pierfran
nt and Metada
e version of
ures
ata, Working
ies, Tools, IPR
P
2013
ment
lines
me, Deliver
on http://www
ight Noti
c, it availab
. This licens
n. For m
ns.org/license
ptimisation
SI)
versions ap
Author
Ivan Bru
Ivan
Paolucci
Ivan Bru
Paolo Ne
y:
nal unpublis
published ma
th.
vice optimisat
ncesco Bellini,
ta processing
content and
group, Best P
R
rable numbe
w.eclap.eu
ice
ble under th
e permits no
more info
es/by‐nc‐nd/
pproved by
r
uno
Bruno/Mic
i
uno
esi
shed work
aterial and o
tion
, Michela Pao
and semantifi
d metadata p
Practice Netw
er, Deliverab
he Creative C
on‐commerc
ormation o
/3.0/
the docume
Org
DSI
chela DSI
DSI
DSI
except wh
of the work
olucci
ication
processing an
work, Perform
ble title, EC
Commons li
cial sharing a
on this
ent coordina
ganization
here clearly
of others h
d semantifica
ming Arts, Ed
CLAP Proje
cense: Attri
and remixing
license, y
ator or if th
n Descr
DE Set
DE upd
DE Fin
Approv
closure
y indicated
has been ma
ation, functio
ducation, Trai
ect, DD/MM
bution‐NonC
g of this wor
you can
2
his action is
ription
t up
date
nalization
val and
e
otherwise.
ade through
onalities and
ning, Digital
M/YY, URL:
Commercial‐
k, so long as
visit ,
2
s
:
‐
s
,

DE6.1.3 - Validation and service optimisation

3
ECLAP project

Please note that:
 You can become affiliated with ECLAP. This will give you access to a great amount of knowledge,
information related to ECLAP services, content and tools. If you are interested please contact ECLAP
coordinator Paolo Nesi at info@eclap.eu. Once affiliated with ECLAP you will have the possibility of
using the ECLAP for your organisation.
 You can contribute to the improvement of ECLAP by sending your contribution to ECLAP coordinator
Paolo Nesi at info@ECLAP.eu
 You can attend ECLAP meetings that are open to public, for additional information see www.eclap.eu or
contact ECLAP coordinator Paolo Nesi at info@eclap.eu


4
ECLAP project

Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary and Report Scope ...................................................................................................... 6
2 ECLAP Overall Scenario .............................................................................................................................. 7
3 ECLAP Workflow, Content and Metadata Management ............................................................................. 9
3.1 ECLAP Back‐Office Services ................................................................................................................ 9
3.2 ECLAP Front office tools .................................................................................................................. 10
3.3 ECLAP Workflow Model ................................................................................................................... 10
4 ECLAP IPR Management .......................................................................................................................... 11
4.1 Content Providers and Rights .......................................................................................................... 11
4.2 IPR Models Definition ...................................................................................................................... 12
4.3 Application of IPR Models ............................................................................................................... 12
4.4 Association of IPR Models at Ingestion Time .................................................................................. 12
4.5 IPR Model's Additional Conditions .................................................................................................. 12
5 IPR Wizard Tool ....................................................................................................................................... 13
5.1 Relationships among user roles ....................................................................................................... 13
5.2 Relationships among permissions ................................................................................................... 13
5.3 The Wizard Tool ............................................................................................................................... 14
6 ECLAP Workflow Validation Report ......................................................................................................... 15
6.1 Workflow Users ............................................................................................................................... 15
6.2 Workflow Transitions ...................................................................................................................... 15
7 Workflow Tools Usage ............................................................................................................................. 17
7.1 Back‐office services ......................................................................................................................... 17
7.1.1 Content and Metadata Ingestion ................................................................................................ 17
7.1.2 Metadata Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 17
7.1.3 Metadata Validation .................................................................................................................... 18
7.1.4 Content Publication ..................................................................................................................... 19
7.2 Front‐office tools ............................................................................................................................. 20
7.2.1 Web Page Upload ........................................................................................................................ 20
7.2.2 Metadata Editor: Enrichment Mode & Validation Mode ............................................................ 20
7.2.3 IPR Wizard Usage ......................................................................................................................... 22
7.2.4 IPR Models Used .......................................................................................................................... 24
7.2.5 Content Management Tool ......................................................................................................... 26
8 References ............................................................................................................................................... 28


5
ECLAP project

Table of Figures
Figure 1 ‐ ECLAP Overall Scenario ...................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2 ‐ ECLAP Permissions ............................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 3 ‐ ECLAP Back Office and Portal architecture ....................................................................................... 9
Figure 4 ‐ ECLAP Workflow diagram ................................................................................................................ 11
Figure 6 ‐ Relationships among user roles. ..................................................................................................... 13
Figure 7 ‐ IPR permissions relations on Audio content ................................................................................... 14
Figure 8 ‐ IPR Wizard: audio sample. ............................................................................................................... 14
Figure 9 ‐ Chart of workflow transitions per month ........................................................................................ 16
Figure 10 – Chart of Back Office Metadata Analysis by month ....................................................................... 18
Figure 11 ‐ Chart of BackOffice Metadata Validation ...................................................................................... 19
Figure 12 ‐ Chart of BackOffice Content Publication ....................................................................................... 20


6
ECLAP project

1 Executive Summary and Report Scope
ECLAP provides services and tools for automated content ingestion, adaptation, metadata ingestion and
editing, semantic information extraction, indexing and distribution by exploiting the most innovative and
consolidated technologies with the aim of providing high quality content to Europeana and make them
accessible to content provider for their users in the area of education, research, and entertainment.
In this document the current ECLAP Overall Scenario is described focussing on the lice-cycle (workflow) of
ECLAP content (content ingestion, content management). The solution takes into account metadata and IPR
model, the ECLAP workflow services and tools defined to manage them both manually by users and
automatically by the back-office. All this refers to the three main areas of the ECLAP architecture for
content and metadata management and the corresponding developed services and tools (Metadata Ingestion
Server, ACXP back office services and ECLAP front-office tools available on the ECLAP Portal). In this
report is also detailed the IPR Wizard tool and the IPR Logic Model adopted to guide the Content Providers
on creating an IPR Models and on making the association <IPR Model; content>. This tool has been realized
to simplify and make systematic and standard the work of the IPR Managers of each CP.
According to ECLAP workflow, the content ingestion starts taking metadata and content files from any kind
of archive and/or database or by providing them via FTP and/or web based utilities. Once the metadata area
ingested, an intelligent content processing back office is capable of collecting and automatically repurposing
content for distribution via pc and mobiles, coping with more than 500 digital file formats. The content
uploaded/ingested is initially accepted and made available on the ECLAP BPN front end with a set of
restrictions and the obtained metadata sets are sent to Europeana only after that the metadata have been
enriched and linked to a reachable digital resource and when the IPR issues have been correctly defined with
the needed quality level.
The ECLAP metadata enrichment activities can be performed by humans via suitable interface and tools or
automatically performed by using a freeware AXCP media grid used as back office to run automated
procedures as services (the automation parts are scripted). The typical metadata enrichments performed by
ECLAP can be the addition of technical descriptors of source files, indexing, vip names extractors, the
addition of more languages, the geo localization passing from location named into metadata and descriptors
to formal GPS position, the production of QR codes for museum inspection and linkage (see it as augmented
reality first step), the content aggregation, the addition of comments and tags, the association of taxonomical
classification and so on. Nevertheless, enrichment activity could be performed by ECLAP user by using
Metadata editor available as front-office tool.
The IPR management and the assignment of access restrictions is a way to enable the increment of possible
available content on the internet. Permissions as IPR models can be enforced on content by each ECLAP
institution (content owner), by using the IPR Wizard tool. An ECLAP IPR Model can be associated with
each single content or collection. The IPR model has been derived from the work performed on MPEG-21
standard taking into account the ontologies and relationships among different content distribution and access
rights. This means that access rules are imposed to restrict and regulate the content access taking into
account: content format (video, audio, document, etc.), actions/rights (play, download, stream, embed, etc.),
device (PC, mobile, mobile application), users’ type (private, public, educational, etc.), location (nationality,
university...), resolution (HD, high quality, medium, low, etc.). This model for content distribution with IPR
management is associated with a strong legal model as Terms of Use and privacy policy (see them on the
portal).

DE6.1.3 - V

ECLAP projec

Finally, wit
analysis of
conducted t
and results a
The usage a
2013. It un
match the E
the front of
Wizard and
of the conte
the 1% of c
Europeana
huge effort
whole set o
institutions.
The docum
Content Pro
Section 3 d
managemen
application,
Section 6 r
evaluating t
2 ECL
In order to
Overall Sce
content on E
Validation an
ct
th the aim of
f workflow a
to validate th
and numbers
analysis put
nderlines that
Europeana re
ffice side, th
d the Content
ent versus Eu
ontent has be
constrained
has been ke
of more tha
.
ment is organ
oviders follo
describes m
nt. Section 4
, association
reports the E
the usage of
LAP Overal
better under
enario in term
ECLAP and
nd service op
f providing th
activities pe
he use of serv
s.
in evidence
t the huge a
equirements h
e most used
t Managemen
uropeana. M
een corrected
the content p
ept under co
an 120.000 d
nized as follo
owed to pub
ore in detai
4 provides t
n and manag
ECLAP wor
tools during
ll Scenario
rstand the co
ms of workfl
then provide
ptimisation
he evidence o
rformed on
vices and too
the whole ac
activity on co
has been ma
tools by co
nt since they
Most of the m
d from that p
provider to a
ntrol by exp
different con
owing. Secti
blish their co
il the ECLA
the descripti
gement. The
rkflow valida
the ECLAP
ontent and m
ow, rules, pr
e it to Europe
Figure 1 ‐
of the perfor
the content
ols involved
ctivities of E
ontent and m
ainly automat
ontent provid
y allow users
metadata prov
point of view
associate to
ploiting the I
ntent coming
ion 2 provid
ontents on E
AP workflow
ion about th
e description
ation activit
project.
metadata man
rocedures, et
eana (Figure
‐ ECLAP Overal
rmed validati
t, metadata
in the lice-cy
ECLAP on co
metadata agg
ted and perfo
ders have bee
to finalise th
vided were a
w. On the oth
the 100% of
IPR Model,
g from mor
des an overv
ECLAP and
w and tools
he ECLAP
n of IPR W
ty and analy
nagement, it
tc., that each
1.).
l Scenario
ion and usag
and IPR un
ycle of ECLA
ontent, meta
gregation, an
ormed by the
en associated
he rights and
lready in a g
er hand, the
f the content
and applying
e than 35 d
view of work
then on Eur
used in the
IPR underli
izard tool is
ysis that allo
is useful to
Content Pro
ge, this report
ntil May 201
AP content a
adata and IPR
nalysis and v
e back-office
d with IPR,
d to provide a
good shape a
IPR details r
t a new IPR
g only 67 m
different col
kflow that e
ropeana Dig
e metadata
ining model
s reported in
owed unders
o summarize
ovider follow

7
t includes an
13 has been
and metadata
R until April
validation to
e. Regarding
namely IPR
a connection
and less than
requested by
model. This
models to the
lections and
each ECLAP
gital Library.
and content
s definition,
n section 5.
standing and
the ECLAP
ws to publish
7
n
n
a
l
o
g
R
n
n
y
s
e
d
P
.
t
,
.
d
P
h

DE6.1.3 - V

ECLAP projec

All content
to European
 uplo
 enri
des
 asso
The content
metadata ar
presenting a
a license de
ECLAP, ma
Content Pro
formats; IP
animations/
relations are
the followin
 acc
 user
 con
Hig
Moreover, m
An importan
channel) an
the contents
Validation an
ct
managed in
na via its met
oaded;
iched throug
cribe and ma
ociated to an
t uploaded/in
re immediate
a (i) sufficien
efined (one
any different
oviders’ nee
PR on conte
/html/etc. thr
e more articu
ng aspects:
ess to the co
r device (e.g
ntent resoluti
gh resolution
many users w
nt thing to b
nd can manag
s uploaded on
nd service op
the ECLAP
tadata. In ev
gh metadata
anage the con
n IPR Model
ngested is in
ely available
nt set of met
from the se
t set of perm
eds. For exa
ent (license
ree permissi
ulated (see F
ntent (e.g., th
g., the conten
ion (e.g., the
n).
with differen
e noticed is
ge only the c
n the portal a
ptimisation
P must be ass
ent of Europ
(some metad
ntent in the E
(through the
nitially availa
e for indexin
adata (e.g., E
et admitted b
missions on t
ample: conte
s, permissio
ions are pre
Figure 2). Pe
he content ca
nt can be play
e content can
nt roles and p
the concept
content uploa
are only man
Figure
sociated with
peana based E
data must be
ECLAP);
e IPR Wizard
able on the
ng and search
Europeana m
by “european
the content a
ent and met
ons, etc.); c
esent while
ermissions m
an be accessi
yed via a PC
n be accessib
permissions a
of group: in
aded by a use
naged by who
2 ‐ ECLAP Perm
h a specific w
ECLAP work
e sent to Eu
d, as describe
ECLAP BPN
hing for all k
mandatory me
na:rights”), w
are available
adata upload
collection to
for the audi
managed on t
ible via prog
and/or a mo
ble only in a
are involved
ECLAP eac
er registered
o has the righ
missions
workflow be
kflow, conten
uropeana and
ed in next sec
N with maxi
kind of ECL
etadata) and
will be publ
and take in
d methods;
opics; etc. S
io and video
the ECLAP P
gressive down
obile device,
a reduced Lo
in the ECLA
ch CP has its
to its group
hts to do so.
efore it can b
nt has to be:
d others are
ections).
imum restric
LAP users. O
(ii) IPR info
lished on Eu
nto account b
metadata st
So for the
o permission
Portal can b
nload and/or
iPad, etc.)
ow Resolutio
AP knowledg
s own group
. This is a gu

8
be connected
necessary to
ctions, while
Only content
ormation and
uropeana. In
both ECLAP
andards and
pdf/images/
ns and their
e referred to
r download)
on and/or in
ge workflow.
(distribution
uarantee that
8
d
o
e
t
d
n
P
d
/
r
o
n
.
n
t

DE6.1.3 - V

ECLAP projec

3 ECL
The ECLAP
Metadata In
collects mas
as MINT). M
are made
procedures
validation, p
content and
3.1 ECL
The ECLAP
on a single a
Automated
ECLAP par
Content/Me
uploaded vi
Adaptation
accessible b
browser.); (
Metadata T
tool or web
Content/me
needed: cha
Validation an
ct
LAP Workf
P architectur
ngestion Serv
ssive metada
Metadata co
available th
for content
publishing, e
d metadata, IP
AP Back-O
P back-office
and on multi
ingestion –
rtners and Di
etadata prod
ia web or ing
processes
by different d
(ii) Video ad
ranslation tr
service for t
tadata mana
anges in the w
nd service op
flow, Conte
re for conten
ver, ACXP b
ata provided
ming in diff
hrough the
and metada
etc…). The E
PR models d
Figu
ffice Service
e tools consi
iple contents
It ingests bo
igital Archiv
duction and a
gested. To m
are exploite
devices (iPho
daptation pro
anslates Dub
text translatio
agement - D
workflow sta
ptimisation
ent and Me
nt and metad
back office
by digital ar
ferent schema
OAI-PMH p
ata processin
ECLAP port
definition, con
ure 3 ‐ ECLAP Ba
es
ist of a set of
.
oth massively
es and from
adaptation -
make the inco
ed: (i) Cont
one, iPad, A
oduces the L
blin Core me
on.
During the l
atus, changes
etadata Ma
data managem
services and
archives and
a are mapped
protocol. A
ng (harvesti
tal is the fron
ntent manag
ack Office and
f grid proces
y and singula
the external
This proces
oming digital
tent adaptat
Android, Win
Low, Medium
etadata and m
life-cycle of
s in the meta
anagement
ment (see Fig
d ECLAP Po
libraries (us
d according
ACXP back
ing, ingestio
nt end and pr
gement and E
Portal architec
sses that run
arly metadat
metadata ma
ss works wit
l resource acc
tion to diffe
ndows Phone
m and High
missing meta
f content, m
adata, additio
gure 3) cons
ortal. The Me
ing external
to the ECLA
office servi
on, analysis,
rovides front
Europeana pu
cture
automated w
ta and digital
apping tool M
th the digita
cessible by d
ferent resolu
e, etc. and on
Definition v
adata in diffe
assive action
on of details
sists of three
Metadata Inge
metadata m
AP metadata
ices provide
production,
t-office tools
ublishing.
workflow pro
l resources c
MINT.
al resource a
different dev
utions produ
n the ECLAP
versions of a
erent languag
ns on conte
in the metad
9
e main areas:
estion Server
mapping tools
schema and
e automated
, adaptation,
s to work on

ocesses both
coming from
and metadata
ices Content
uces content
P portal, any
a video; (iii)
ges by using
ent could be
data sets, etc.
9
:
r
s
d
d
,
n
h
m
a
t
t
y
)
g
e
.


10
ECLAP project

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.
3.2 ECLAP Front office tools
The following front office web tools of ECLAP 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 and metadata on the portal through the Upload
web page.
Metadata Editor is the tool for enriching and validating metadata. According to the user role, the editor
works in Enrichment mode for enricher users and in Validation mode for validator user.
IPR wizard allows creating IPR Model that takes into account all the issues related to publishing content
online in the ECLAP context.
Content Management tool allows users to manage content and publish them to Europeana.
3.3 ECLAP Workflow Model
Front-office tools allow working on metadata in different ways. In order to avoid the production of
mistakes and problems specific accesses and roles can be granted only to skilled people and any action has to
be tracked to trace and assess quality about the performed activities. To this end, specific roles have been
defined:
 WFIPR (CP): responsible for the definition and validation of IPR models, and IPR assignment to the
content; by using the IPR Wizard and during the Upload for the IPR Model Assignment.
 WFENRICHER (CP, {languages}): responsible for the metadata enrichment and changes in the
specified languages (add, edit metadata) by using the Metadata Editor in Enrichment mode.
 WFVALIDATOR (CP, {languages}): to validate the metadata for the identified language. The
metadata fields can be singularly validated until the object may pass the whole approval phase.
Validation and invalidation are made by using the Metadata Editor in Validation modality.
 WFPUBLISHER (CP): 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 specific user role since they are performed by rules on AXCP
computing grid background automated processes on content and metadata.
ECLAP back-office services and front-office tools work both on content and metadata. However, such
processes have to work in concurrency: back-office content processing are accessing and processing 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 days 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.

DE6.1.3 - V

ECLAP projec

4 ECL
In the ECL
workflow, t
and linked
problems re
4.1 Cont
Avoid that t
the work on
the CPs to
restrictions,
about avail
inconsistent
enforced in
visualized o
relationship
been implem
Once the C
reuse on the
in order to f
Validation an
ct
LAP IPR M
LAP service,
the obtained
to a reachab
elated to the I
tent Provide
the Content
n the IPR ma
: (i) unders
, if needed, t
lable techno
t rights on
n a given co
on a compu
ps among the
mented in the
Ps have und
e web, the ne
formalize the
nd service op
Managemen
Content Pro
metadata se
ble digital re
IPR managem
ers and Righ
Partners (CP
anagement st
stand their r
they wanted
ologies and
objects (Inc
ontext. For
uter). As it h
e rights ident
e ECLAP IP
derstood, from
ext stage wa
e IPR Model
ptimisation
Figure 4 ‐
nt
oviders prov
ets are sent to
source and w
ment, are de
hts
Ps) can incor
tarted. In fac
rights on dig
to impose o
on the IPR
consistency c
example, the
has happened
tified have b
R Wizard wh
m a legal po
as to guide th
s with relate
ECLAP Workflo
vide both co
o Europeana
when the IP
scribed in th
rrectly assign
ct the first st
gital conten
on their cont
R issues rel
can be due
ey may req
d in other s
been analyse
hich is based
oint of view,
hem on defin
d access rest
ow diagram
ontent files a
a only after th
R issues hav
he following
n licenses to
tep made by
nts, (ii) guid
tent once ha
ated to them
to the defin
uest to avoi
studies or in
d, formalize
d on ECLAP
their positio
ning licenses
triction/perm
and metadata
hat the meta
ve been corr
sections.
the contents
the ECLAP
de them on
aving put it o
m, (iv) avo
nition of lim
id images to
n the develop
d and the log
IPR model.
on with respe
using the to
missions.
a. According
adata have be
rectly define
s is the point
Consortium
choosing w
online, (iii) i
oiding the d
mitations tha
o be copied
pment of st
gic that relat
ect to the co
ools provided
11

g to ECLAP
een enriched
d. The main
t from which
m was to help
what type of
inform them
definition of
at cannot be
d if they are
andards, the
tes them has
ntent and its
d by ECLAP
1
P
d
n
h
p
f
m
f
e
e
e
s
s
P


12
ECLAP project

4.2 IPR Models Definition
Given the diversity of CPs and of the related needs on their contents, a general and flexible IPR model has to
be defined. The solution can produce specialized IPR models for each CP. In this way it is possible to
customize the binding of licenses and permissions based on the specific needs and with the greatest
flexibility. An IPR Model contains:
 model details: IPR Model name, description, etc.;
 a set of permissions such as: play, download, embed, etc. and differently defined for PC (web) and
mobile devices; Different permissions for
o different content kind (audio, video, images, document, etc.);
o different resolutions, etc.
 a license (Creative Commons, etc.);
 a Publisher ECLAP page (related to the Content Provider, right owner);
 an IPR ingestion identifier (needed to assign the IPR Model to the contents).
In ECLAP, the users that can create and manage IPR Models are called IPR Managers.
4.3 Application of IPR Models
An IPR Model, once defined, can be associated with a content manually from the interface of the ECLAP
workflow or automatically. If a CP has the needs to change the access permissions or licenses associated
with content may do so by going directly to change the IPR Model. The association <IPR Model; content>
remains unchanged: the permissions on content are instantly updated to all content.
This was performed by giving the possibility to each CP to provide content with initial maximum
restrictions: the content, at first, is accessible only for Trusted Users. Moreover, ECLAP gives to the public
users the visibility of some metadata (those in public domain) on the regular user. While, public users cannot
access the digital content until the content is not associated with an IPR Model, but can see their existence
with the possibility of contacting the CP in case they were interested in the content. By associating an IPR
Model to one or more content, each CP can change the initial maximum restriction access allowing external
users to possibly access content depending on the conditions expressed in the model.
4.4 Association of IPR Models at Ingestion Time
ECLAP CP has to manage a huge quantity of digital contents, so the modality of make the association <IPR
Model; content> one by one, is not sufficient. For this reason, the presence of an IPR ingestion identifier
(IPR_id) in the IPR Model has been provided. This identifier is obviously also connected to the contents as
metadata. In this way, a CP can associate an IPR Model with contents also in case of massive ingestion and
workflow that in ECLAP is the standard way to upload content. Each CP could create several IPR Models,
and may put the corresponding IPR_id as metadata on the content and the system automatically manages the
association.
4.5 IPR Model's Additional Conditions
Each IPR Model is made in such a way that even the definition of additional conditions is allowed, in line
with the standard MPEG-21, ODRL, OASIS XAMCL. Some of these data may be, for example: the
expiration date, the duration of the validity, etc.

DE6.1.3 - V

ECLAP projec

5 IPR
The IPR Wi
by each CP
realized star
online in th
and make sy
on the follow
 rela
 rela
5.1 Relat
The users in
Each registe
The IPR M
possible to e
(registered a
and that has
belong to E
task on IPR
assign the p
the system h
Group and E
5.2 Relat
The relation
type to whi
L'origine r
involves oth
Validation an
ct
Wizard To
izard tool ha
P) on creating
rting from th
he ECLAP c
ystematic an
wing two ma
ationships am
ationships am
tionships am
nvolved in th
ered user ma
Manager can
establish a h
and enrolled
s declared in
ECLAP partn
R. The hierarc
permissions t
has to autom
Educational
tionships am
nships among
ich they are
riferimento n
her permissio
nd service op
ool
as been realiz
g an IPR Mo
he IPR Logic
ontext, descr
nd standard th
ain aspects, a
mong user rol
mong permiss
mong user ro
he IPR mana
ay have addi
establish th
hierarchy amo
to the CP’s
n his/her user
ners). It shou
chy is explai
to the users.
matically asso
l Users). Not
mong permis
g the permis
applied and
non è stata
ons.
ptimisation
zed in order t
odels and on
c Model that
ribed in synt
he work of th
approved by
les;
sions.
oles
agement can
tional roles:
he set of per
ong the user
group), Grou
r profile to b
uld be noted
ined in Figur
For example
ociate the sa
te that the Tr
Figure 5 ‐ Rela
ssions
sions (or righ
d modelled b
trovata., the
to guide the
n making the
takes into ac
thesis in the
he IPR Mana
the 35 ECLA
be users reg
each role ca
rmissions fo
roles, that ar
up and Educ
be an educati
d that the IPR
re 6, in which
e: if an IPR
ame permissi
rusted Users
ationships amo
ghts) identifie
basing on lo
e arrows are
CP (or more
e association
ccount all the
e previous pa
agers of each
AP internatio
gistered to th
an have a set
or digital con
re: Public Us
cational User
ional/researc
R Managers
h the arrows
Manager as
ions to all th
s always have
ong user roles.
ed have been
ogical and te
posed to exp
precisely, th
<IPR Mode
e issues relat
aragraphs, an
h CP. The IP
onal partners
he ECLAP or
t of IPR perm
ntent through
User (PU, not
rs (registered
ch user), Trus
are Trusted
representing
ssigns a perm
e registered
e all the perm
n analysed on
echnical aspe
plain that som
he IPR Mana
el; content>.
ted to publis
nd is created
PR Logic Mo
s:
r not (e.g., p
missions asso
gh the IPR W
t registered),
d, enrolled to
usted User (T
d Users with
g the relation
mission to a P
users (Group
missions.

n the basis o
ects. In Figu
me permissio
13
agers chosen
This tool is
hing content
d to simplify
odel is based
ublic users).
ociated to it.
Wizard. It is
Group User
o CP’s group
TU, user that
the specific
ns on how to
Public User,
up Users and
f the content
ure 7Errore.
on implicitly
3
n
s
t
y
d
.
.
s
r
p
t
c
o
,
d
t
.
y

DE6.1.3 - V

ECLAP projec

Here after t
content), us
different arr
Unidirectio
ECLAP use
and/or prog
(without enc
Bidirection
Partner allo
same conten
then transfe
via mobile c
5.3 The W
The IPR Wi
other users”
according t
more permi
wizard auto
Validation an
ct
two samples
seful to desc
rows:
onal arrow b
er to downlo
gressive down
cryptions or
nal arrow be
ows an ECLA
nt from a mo
er the conten
can be easily
Wizard Too
Wizard creates
” as default
o the hierarc
issions that h
omatically se
nd service op
Figur
on audio co
cribe the per
between ‘Au
oad the audi
nload). This
protection) f
etween ‘Audi
AP user to d
obile device.
nt into a mob
y moved arou
ol
s a new IPR
values. The
chy of relati
he/she wants
lects also the
ptimisation
re 6 ‐ IPR perm
ontent (same
rmission rela
udio downloa
io content, th
because, fro
from the web
io download
download co
This becaus
bile device, s
und and has n
Model startin
e IPR Logic
ionships (see
to associate
e permission
Figure 7 ‐ I
missions relation
samples can
ations. The
ad-PC’ → ‘A
the CP impli
om a technica
b he can play
d-PC’ ←→ ‘
ontent from
se the users c
so that the ap
no sense to b
ng with: “Al
Model impl
e previous s
e to an IPR M
ns strictly con
IPR Wizard: aud
ns on Audio co
n be done al
relations am
Audio play-P
icitly allows
al point of vi
y/view it on h
‘Audio down
PC, implicit
can download
pplication of
be applied. It
ll permission
lemented tak
sections). Th
Model (and th
nnected to th
dio sample.

ntent
so for the pd
mong permiss
PC’: if a Con
also to play
iew: if someo
his PC when
nload-mobile
tly allows hi
d a content v
f a restriction
t is also true t
ns for TU an
kes decisions
he manager h
herefore to a
ose chosen b
df/images/ot
sions are rep
ontent Partne
ay it (play vi
one downloa
never he wan
e-Browser’:
im also to d
via a browser
n to avoid th
the vice-vers
nd no permis
s for the IPR
has just to s
a set of conte
by the IPR M

14
ther or video
presented as
er allows an
ia streaming
ads a content
ts.
if a Content
ownload the
r in their PC,
he download
sa.
sions for the
R Managers
select one or
ents) and the
Manager.
4
o
s
n
g
t
t
e
,
d
e
s
r
e


15
ECLAP project

This mechanism has two main advantages: the IPR Manager does not need to know the relationships among
the permissions; the probability of error for inconsistency is null.
A sample, in Figure 8: “If a CP allows all Group Users to embed an audio content”, the IPR Wizard directly
implies the following permissions on audio content:
Step 1 (‘Embed’ → ‘Play-PC’; relationships among users): (i) all the users (Public, Group, Group and
Educational) can play the content on PC; (ii) Group and Educational Users can embed the content;
Step 2 (‘Play-PC’ → ‘Play-mobile-browser’; relationships among users): (i) all the users (Public, Group,
Group and Educational) can play the content on mobile via Browser;
Step 3 (‘Play-Mobile-Browser’ → ‘Play-mobile-app’; relationships among users): (i) all the users (Public,
Group, Group and Educational) can play the content on mobile via ECLAP Applications.
In this case not all permissions to all users are allowed: the Creative Commons Licences cannot be associated
with this IPR Model, so the user can choose the licence from one of the restricted licences allowed by
Europeana (“Unknown copyright status” or “Right Reserved – Restricted access”), 19. While if a CP creates
an IPR Model in which all the permissions are allowed to all the users, it is possible to choose one of the CC
Licences.
6 ECLAP Workflow Validation Report
In this section the analysis of workflow activity performed on the content, metadata and IPR until May 2013
is reported. The number of workflow transitions from state X to state Y and their distribution in the time
period put in evidence the whole activity of the portal on content and metadata and allow analyzing
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.
6.1 Workflow Users
Actually, there are 29 workflow users. Each user could have single or multiple workflow roles. The
workflow user roles are distributed as: 24 enrichers (WFENRICHER), 6 validators (WFVALIDATOR), 23
IPR users (WFIPR) and 9 publishers (WFPUBLISHER).
6.2 Workflow Transitions
The number of transitions from state X to state Y and their distribution in the time period are reported in the
following tables.
From To Number of Transitions
'Uploaded' 'Under-AXCP' 179912
'Under-AXCP' 'Uploaded' 179912
'(creation)' 'Uploaded' 117861
'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


16
ECLAP project

'Uploaded' 'Under-Validation' 38
'Under-Validation' 'Uploaded' 38
'Published' 'Uploaded' 3
Table 1 - Number of transitions from state X to state Y
Year/month Number of workflow state transitions
2011/05 882
2011/06 315
2011/07 4030
2011/08 33171
2011/09 3089
2011/10 20737
2011/11 317
2011/12 3877
2012/01 2197
2012/02 4033
2012/03 40916
2012/04 172250
2012/05 113921
2012/06 66741
2012/07 33868
2012/08 27089
2012/09 26612
2012/10 36660
2012/11 43800
2012/12 11489
2013/01 6866
2013/02 9632
2013/03 17575
2013/04 23477
2013/05 2508
Table 2 - Number of workflow transitions per month
Figure 8 - Chart of workflow transitions per month
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
Workflow transitions/month


17
ECLAP project

The following table shows some absolute values obtained from the analysis of workflow data stored during
the ECLAP project.
Metric Value
Average value of workflow transitions per
content
6.0037
Max value of workflow transitions per content 104
Maximum peak of workflow transitions per day 13162 ('2012-05-28')
Maximum peak of workflow transitions per
month
172250 ('2012-04)
Total Number of content uploaded on the portal 117861
Table 3 – Absolute values obtained from workflow data
7 Workflow Tools Usage
The workflow transitions analysis mixed to information stored in the ECLAP database allowed evaluating
the activity on metadata performed by ECLAP back-office (automated) and user (manually) by means front-
end tools. Obtained results are reported in the following sections.
7.1 Back-office services
The ECLAP back-office services consist of a set of grid processes that run periodically automated workflow
processes both on a single and on multiple contents.
7.1.1 Content and Metadata Ingestion
It ingests metadata and content coming from ECLAP partners and Digital Archives and from the external
metadata mapping tool MINT. The following table reports the number of content ingested and processed by
the back-office. At the end of ingestion the workflow state of content is put to UPLOADED.
Number of processed content via ingestion 106525
Table 4- Number of ingested content by the back-office
7.1.2 Metadata Analysis
Every time the back-office has to perform the metadata analysis for assessment or automated translation it
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. These transitions distributed in the time (by month) provide a measure
of the activity on metadata running in the back-office as reported in the following table.
Year/month BackOffice Metadata Analysis
2012/03 12098
2012/04 54226
2012/05 17855
2012/06 11359
2012/07 11014
2012/08 10897
2012/09 11073
2012/10 14040
2012/11 12442
2012/12 3555
2013/01 2173


18
ECLAP project

2013/02 2478
2013/03 6488
2013/04 8960
2013/05 1254
Table 5 - Back Office Metadata Analysis by month

Figure 9 – Chart of Back Office Metadata Analysis by month
Regarding the automated translation of metadata has been measured:
Automatic translation of at least one metadata
per content
337
7.1.3 Metadata Validation
Every time content passed the metadata analysis the back-office performs a transition to the UNDER-
APPROVAL. These transitions distributed in the time (by month) provide a measure of the metadata
validation activity running in the back-office as reported in the following table.
Year/month BackOffice Metadata Validation
2012/03 12040
2012/04 52985
2012/05 16793
2012/06 9481
2012/07 3927
2012/08 1707
2012/09 1140
2012/10 1716
2012/11 7102
2012/12 1583
2013/01 587
2013/02 1206
2013/03 1450
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
BackOffice Metadata Analysis


19
ECLAP project

2013/04 1832
Table 6 - BackOffice Metadata Validation

Figure 10 - Chart of BackOffice Metadata Validation
7.1.4 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. These transitions distributed in the time (by
month) provide a measure of the publication activity running in the back-office as reported in the following
table.
Year/month BackOffice Content Publication
2012/03 1
2012/05 57121
2012/06 29127
2012/07 2262
2012/08 1191
2012/09 1202
2012/10 4207
2012/11 6837
2012/12 1297
2013/01 382
2013/02 1043
2013/03 1347
2013/04 1581
Total 107598
Table 7 - BackOffice Content Publication
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
BackOffice Metadata Validation


20
ECLAP project

Figure 11 - Chart of BackOffice Content Publication
7.2 Front-office tools
In this section the analysis of the activity performed by users via front-office tools is reported.
7.2.1 Web Page Upload
The number of processed content uploaded manually by users via the Web Page Upload is given by
considering the total number of content ingested by the back-office and total number of workflow transitions
from ‘creation’ to ‘UPLOADED’ state.
Number of processed content via web upload 11336
7.2.2 Metadata Editor: Enrichment Mode & Validation Mode
To evaluate the usage of Metadata Editor in enrichment and validation activity both in the time and by
partner, we measured the number and the event time of workflow transitions from UPLOADED to UNDER-
ENRICH and from UPLOADED to UNDER-VALIDATION. The former transition gives a measure of
enrichment activity and the latter of the validation activity. Event time has been grouped by month and then
distributed by partners who made them.
The following table reports the values for transitions grouped by month.
Year/month Enrichment Activity Validation Activity
2011/05 43 7
2011/06 55 4
2011/07 17 0
2011/08 2 0
2011/09 5 0
2011/10 18 0
2011/11 7 5
2011/12 6 1
2012/01 8 1
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
BackOffice Content Publication


21
ECLAP project

2012/02 3 0
2012/03 7 0
2012/04 12 0
2012/05 17 0
2012/06 38 0
2012/07 83 0
2012/08 25 2
2012/09 12 2
2012/10 15 0
2012/11 134 0
2012/12 8 0
2013/01 17 0
2013/02 7 0
2013/03 12 1
2013/04 60 15
Total 611 38
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2011/05
2011/06
2011/07
2011/08
2011/09
2011/10
2011/11
2011/12
2012/01
2012/02
2012/03
2012/04
2012/05
2012/06
2012/07
2012/08
2012/09
2012/10
2012/11
2012/12
2013/01
2013/02
2013/03
2013/04
Metadata Editor: Enrichment Activities
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2011/05
2011/06
2011/07
2011/08
2011/09
2011/10
2011/11
2011/12
2012/01
2012/02
2012/03
2012/04
2012/05
2012/06
2012/07
2012/08
2012/09
2012/10
2012/11
2012/12
2013/01
2013/02
2013/03
2013/04
Metadata Editor: Validation Activities


22
ECLAP project

The distribution of enrichment and validation activity by partner is reported in the following charts:
7.2.3 IPR Wizard Usage
To evaluate the usage of IPR Wizard both in the time and by partner, we measured the number and the event
time of workflow transitions from UPLOADED to UNDER-IPR. Event time has been grouped by month and
then distributed by partners who made them.
The following table reports the values for transitions grouped by month.
Year/month IPR Wizard Activities
2011/05 93
2011/06 28
52%
19%
5%
5%
5%
3%
3% 2%
2%
1%
1%
1% 1% 1%0% 0% 0%
Enrichment Activity By Partner
'MUZEUM'
'DSI'
'FIFF'
'OSZMI'
'UCLM'
'ADDUASLAUROS'
'UCAM'
'CTA‐UNIROMA'
'FFEAC'
'BELLONE'
'BEELD EN GELUID'
'IKP'
'Other'
'UVA'
'ESMAE‐IPP'
'ITB'
'UG'
77%
17%
3%
3%
Validation Activity By Partner
'DSI'
'ADDUASLAUROS'
'BEELD EN GELUID'
'UCAM'


23
ECLAP project

2011/07 29
2011/08 14
2011/10 26
2011/11 7
2012/01 1
2012/02 24
2012/03 5
2012/04 12
2012/05 10
2012/06 15
2012/07 43
2012/08 80
2012/09 139
2012/10 101
2012/11 74
2012/12 48
2013/01 144
2013/03 1
2013/04 35
Total 929
The distribution of IPR activity by partner is reported in the following charts:
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2011/05
2011/06
2011/07
2011/08
2011/10
2011/11
2012/01
2012/02
2012/03
2012/04
2012/05
2012/06
2012/07
2012/08
2012/09
2012/10
2012/11
2012/12
2013/01
2013/03
2013/04
IPR Wizard Activities


24
ECLAP project

7.2.4 IPR Models Used
As reported in the table below, there are in use 67 IPR models, 40 are restrictive not public models while 27
are public models. Most content providers used 1, 2 or 3 models for their content but there some partners
used even 4, 8 or 12 models.
§ Eclap Content Provider Rights url Public Count
1. CTFR http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-f/ 1 41335
2. ITB http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 22945
3. OSZMI http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ 1 8762
4. UG http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-f/ 1 5121
5. BEELD EN GELUID http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ 1 3047
6. FIFF http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 2889
7. LIBERLIBER http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 1 2467
8. CTA-UNIROMA http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 2450
9. MUZEUM http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 1 2300
10. ESMAE-IPP http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 1 2223
11. IKP http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 1401
12. UCAM http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 1 1370
14. IKP http://www.europeana.eu/rights/unknown/ 0 940
15. UCLM http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 845
16. BELLONE http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-f/ 1 495
18. UCLM http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 449
19. DSI http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-f/ 1 396
21. BELLONE http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 341
22. ESMAE-IPP http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 1 324
23. IKP to be defined 0 320
24. ARCHIBRAILLE http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ 1 269
25. OSZMI http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 255
26. UCAM http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 1 250
74%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%1% 0% 0%
0%
IPR Activity By Partner
'BELLONE'
'DSI'
'UCAM'
'MUZEUM'
'UG'
'FIFF'
'FFEAC'
'ADDUASLAUROS'
'CTA‐UNIROMA'
'UVA'
'OSZMI'
'UCLM'
'ESMAE‐IPP'
'IKP'
'BEELD EN GELUID'
'NINA'


25
ECLAP project

29. UVA http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 1 183
30. UVA http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ 1 133
31. UCLM http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 1 112
32. FFEAC http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 1 102
34. DSI http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 69
35. DSI http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-f/ 1 67
37. ESMAE-IPP http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ 1 52
41. DSI http://www.europeana.eu/rights/unknown/ 1 14
42. IKP http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ 1 9
43. MUZEUM http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 9
44. ADDUASLAUROS http://www.europeana.eu/rights/unknown/ 1 7
46. OSZMI http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 6
47. NTUA http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 5
48. CTFR http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-f/ 1 4
49. CTFR http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 3
51. AXMEDIS Cross Media
Finder
http://www.europeana.eu/rights/unknown/ 1 2
Finder
http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-f/ 1 2
53. BEELD EN GELUID http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 2
57. ITB http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-f/ 1 2
58. MUZEUM http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 2
59. UVA http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 2
Finder
http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-r/ 0 1
66. MUZEUM http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ 1 1
67. UVA http://www.europeana.eu/rights/unknown/ 0 1

DE6.1.3 - V

ECLAP projec

Cumulative
Rights url
http://www
http://www
http://creat
http://creat
http://creat
http://www
to be define
http://creat
http://creat
http://creat
7.2.5 Co
To evaluate
we measur
PUBLISHE
The followi
Year/month
2012/05
2012/06
2012/07
2012/08
2012/09
2012/10
2012/11
2012/12
2013/01
2013/02
2013/03
2013/04
Validation an
ct
e value for Ri
w.europeana
w.europeana
tivecommon
tivecommon
tivecommon
w.europeana
ed
tivecommon
tivecommon
tivecommon
ontent Man
e the usage o
red the num
ED. Event tim
ing table repo
h
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
1
nd service op
ights url
a.eu/rights/rr
a.eu/rights/rr
ns.org/public
ns.org/licens
ns.org/licens
a.eu/rights/u
ns.org/public
ns.org/licens
ns.org/licens
nagement To
of Content M
mber and the
me has been
orts the valu
1 4 7 10 1
ptimisation
r-f/
r-r/
cdomain/ma
ses/by-nc-nd
ses/by-sa/3.0
nknown/
cdomain/zer
ses/by-nc-sa/
ses/by-nc/3.0
ool
Management
e event tim
grouped by
es for transit
T
3 16 19 22 2
IP
Pu
C
4
3
ark/1.0/ 1
d/3.0/ 9
0/ 3
9
4
ro/1.0/ 2
/3.0/ 1
0/ 9
tool for pub
me of workf
month and th
tions grouped
Publi
158
1215
1110
3
305
25
213
16
322
17
51
329
Total 3764
25 28 31 34 3
PR Mode
ublic Not P
ount
47422
4199
8814
9331
047
964
439
269
34
9
blication activ
flow transitio
hen distribut
d by month.
ication Activ
5
0
4
37 40 43 46 4
els
Public
vity both in
ons from U
ted by partne
vities
49 52 55 58 6
the time and
UNDER-APP
ers who mad
61 64 67
26
d by partner,
PROVAL to
e them.
6
,
o


27
ECLAP project

The distribution of Publication activity by partner is reported in the following charts:
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Publication Activities
63%
15%
7%
7%
4%
2% 1%
1%
0%
Publication Activity By Partner
'CTA‐UNIROMA'
'UCLM'
'FIFF'
'MUZEUM'
'BEELD EN GELUID'
'DSI'
'UCAM'
'IKP'
'ADDUASLAUROS'


28
ECLAP project

8 References
1. Margaritopoulos, T., Margaritopoulos, M., Mavridis, I., Manitsaris, A. (2008). A conceptual framework for metadata quality
assessment. Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, 104-113.
2. Yu, J., Buyya, R. (2005). A taxonomy of workflow management systems for grid computing. Journal of Grid Computing, 3(3-
4), 171-200.
3. W.M.P. van der Aalst and K.M. van Hee. (2002) Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, USA.
4. Bellini, P., Bruno, I., Nesi, P. (2005). A distributed environment for automatic multimedia content production based on GRID.
Proceedings - First International Conference on Automated Production of Cross Media Content for Multi-Channel Distribution,
AXMEDIS 2005, 2005 134-142.
5. Bellini, P., Bruno, Cenni D., Nesi, P., (2012) "Micro grids for scalable media computing and intelligence on distributed
scenarios", IEEE Multimedia, IEEE Computer Soc. Press.
6. Bellini P., Nesi P., Paolucci M. (2013). IPR Management Models for Cultural Heritage on ECLAP Best Practice Network,
submitted to IEEE ICC 2013 Workshop on “Beyond Social Networks: Collective Awareness”, Budapest, Hungary, June 9-13,
2013
7. Europeana, http://www.europeana.eu
8. P. Bellini, I. Bruno, N. Mitolo, M. Paolucci, “DE3.3.2 infrastructure Content and Metadata Processing and Semantification”
http://www.eclap.eu/urn:axmedis:00000:obj:a722b357-4644-4076-a259-0cbc6260ad7
9. Kollia I. , Tzouvaras V., Drosopoulos N., Stamou G., “A systemic approach for effective semantic access to cultural content”,
Semantic Web, v.3 n.1, p.65-83, January 2012.
10. X. Wang, “MPEG‐21 rights expression language: Enabling interoperable digital rights management,” IEEE Multimedia,
11(4):84–87, 2004.
11. R. Iannella, S. Guth, D. Pähler, and Andreas Kasten. ODRL version 2.0 core model. Specification, W3C ODRL Community
Group, 04 2012. http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/two/model/
12. T. Moses, “Privacy policy profile of XACML v2.0,” Oasis standard, OASIS, 02 2005. http://docs.oasis‐
open.org/xacml/2.0/PRIVACY‐ PROFILE/access_control‐xacml‐2.0‐privacy_profile‐spec‐os.pdf
13. R. Iannella and S. Guth. ODRL version 2.0 common vocabulary. Specification, W3C ODRL Community Group, 04 2012.
http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/two/vocab/
14. M. Buffa and C. Faron-Zucker. Ontology-based access rights management, “In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and
Management,” vol. 398, Studies in Computational Intelligence, pp 49–61. Springer, 2012.
15. Creative Commons, http://creativecommons.org
16. European Library of Artistic Performance, ECLAP, http://www.eclap.eu/
17. “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
18. ECLAP Partners. List and information on ECLAP Partners available at: http://www.eclap.eu/drupal/?q=node/3578
19. ‘Guidelines for the europeana:rights metadata element’, v4.0 - 20
20. P. Bellini, D. Cenni, P. Nesi, “On the Effectiveness and Optimization of Information Retrieval for Cross Media Content”, Proc.
of the KDIR 2012, Part of IC3K 2012, Int. Joint Conf. on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge
Management. Barcelona, Spain, 4-7 October 2012.

Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (10)

Ähnlich wie Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report

Ähnlich wie Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Eclap Validation and service optimisation, final report