During the breakout session in class tonight our image indexing group talked briefly about what we are all thinking for drafting our guidelines. Before spring break as a class we decided that my element, Relation, would best serve the collection by denoting images that are related sequentially and that are derived from the same play. No other element will directly do this, and it could be a useful piece of metadata for search. How to know that this relationship exists between any 2 or more images is the rub.
Since we are indexing in only “semi-automatic” mode, the project manager (in this case, me) will notify everyone in class when the assigned images are sent out whether or not any of their images are related to each other. Therefore, no one will really need to make this judgment call on their own. If we had the capability to be fully automatic, however, Amy pointed out that this kind of relationship could be made known via the image time stamp. Definitely a handy idea.
Still it appears for me at least that the hard part is not over, since I am the one who has to come up with the indexing guidelines for this element. I’m having a tough time thinking of an easy and standard way to phrase what the relationship is that’s taking place. “Image 1 is part of the same play as Image 2″? Is simply “Image 1 is related to Image 2″ sufficient? Nikki had the brilliant suggestion of looking at game transcripts or play by plays for terminology, and I wonder if there are any sports image repositories out there that use the Relation element in this way. I definitely have a little work cut out for me. If anybody else from the class wants to weigh in or is seeing something that I’m not, I am all ears!