*Attendees*
Steve Olshansky, Internet2
Grace Agnew - Rutgers U.
Ann West, Internet2/Educause
Zach Watkinson, Washington
Ken Klingenstein, Internet2
Jeanette Fielden, Internet2
Jim DeRoest, U. Washington, Research Channel (chair)

*Discussion*
There is still interest in a DRM working group. Timing for when the group will be created has not yet been determined.

The question was posed: Should VoD continue to be a separate working group or become a project under another working group? Most of what we are defining as a video assets directory is in support of DRM. If the DRM group takes off where does that piece of the work get handled? If may be that this group morphs into a DRM working group and the VoD stuff becomes a subproject under that.

Several options for VoD to get involved in were mentioned.
First, Grace has a grant from the NSF to do a directory and video registry for the Library of Congress and AMIA. ViDe and the National Science Digital Library (NSDL) are also involved. The grant is focused on moving image preservation at science archives. There are 8 alpha implementers, one of which is Research Channel. There's been a lot of work on developing a schema to describe directory collections. Jim's group will implement the directory. Grace's group at Rutgers will do the actual asset registry. Grace has also proposed a mapping between all the various schema standards under consideration for the AMIA project: Dublin Core, Mark and MPEG-7. The AMIA draft is a combination of those standards, Grace's mapping, and additional attributes.

It was discovered there is no meta-data standard that is in common use between the archives. The meta-data is very heterogeneous. Some archives describe what they have at the shot level, others only describe at the large collection level. The challenge is to reduce all this bibliographic data to a very basic core registry. Currently they're waiting to assemble all the meta-data from the alpha implementers, to test out the directory database. There are a lot of challenges in the structural and element mapping. The system is designed to use portal databases to add additional meta-data at whatever level is appropriate and works starting with the item level up to the archive level. They are doing an LDAP directory to be Shibboleth compliant.

Other groups are interested in preservation and rights meta-data. METS – Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard project – is an XML envelope that links different type of meta-data records together in a single envelope for transmission, rights data, technical, and descriptive meta data. METS is a potential structure for pulling from different portal databases to create a single envelope of information for each item.

A second idea was mentioned by Jim. Research Channel is working on meta-data for collections and find themselves torn between a number of different standards and directions. It would be extremely useful to be able to map to these different standards. There is also a need for rights access information. Research Channel and Pacific Lighthouse are beginning to get collections that will require rights control. They are building an API into the asset system that will allow you to access the meta-data and potentially interact with rights information and content in the repositories. The desire is to provide a facility that people can use in their portal to access rights data. That could potentially be something that the VoD group could build standardization around. They also want to utilize Shibboleth in the asset system as well.

An important issue is to define the basic core set of rights that are common across all functionalities and start there with a less is more approach. Most approaches right now are based on the idea that everything will be revenue generating and focus on denying access. This approach is not likely to be the best one for higher education.

Consensus was that VoD may just need to be refocused and further discussion was needed to define what and how that should happen.

The next call will be January 15, 2003.