Well done Etienne,
A fantastic piece of work...
But I would have to take issue with your view John, of Hansard being an
entirely representative view of what went on in the various chambers...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7187907.stm ;-)
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John O'Donovan
Sent: 04 June 2008 19:17
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] Video recordings of the House of
Commons on TheyWorkForYou.com
Hi - as part of the Digital Democracy project we will be looking
at ways to improve the quantity and quality of coverage, as well as
tagging and metadata developments, some of which will be automated and
produce better metadata at source.
One of the challenges here is that much of the metadata does not
come from the BBC. Lining up transcripts and other metadata with video
is a difficult to do reliably in an automated way as there is so much
room for error. Also the captions available at source are not a
replacement for the full transcript produced by Hansard.
There is a very early overview of the principles for the DD
project here...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/02/digital_democracy.html
The way MySociety have approached this simplifies a difficult
task and makes the video more accessible as a result.
It is a great way to democratise the process of democratising
democracy
Cheers,
jod
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth
Sent: 04 June 2008 12:48
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Video recordings of the House of
Commons on TheyWorkForYou.com
Phil,
2008/6/4 Phil Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I'm sure one of the first computing acronyms I
ever leant was GIGO...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIGO
Yes, I know it. Take a look at Etienne's reply for one
aspect of the details and why the captions may also count as garbage.
Another important point is that the video captioner
they've put together matches video to Hansard, rather than just the
captions - that is, to the official record of what was said, rather than
what was actually said, which is an important distinction.
I still can't help thinking that this should be done "at
source". I thought Auntie was supposed to be give good tagging?
Phil
2008/6/4 Phil Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>:
However, a clear text feed of the data
would keep the data pure,
surely?
Seriously, where would the fun in that be?
Phil 'timestamp-tastic' Wilson
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk
<http://backstage.bbc.co.uk>
discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
--
Please email me back if you need any more help.
Brian Butterworth
http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital
television and switchover advice, since 2002
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To
unsubscribe, please visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
--
Brian Butterworth
http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and
switchover advice, since 2002
