MovieLabs publishes common ontology for production
1–10 of 33 posts
Re: MovieLabs publishes common ontology for production
#2This looks like a large scale domain modelling problem for the movie production process. This is the last place I was expecting an overlap between computer engineering and film-making.
But it is not surprising given that large parts of film-making are now supported by software, which has a tendency to direct the evolution of terminology and concepts.
After a cursory glance at the model, it starts with a fairly generic set of primitives: Task, Asset, Participant, Context and Relationship. It then creates further instances based on this idea.
I'm sure other industries could also benefit from collaborative modelling of their problem domains like this.
Re: MovieLabs publishes common ontology for production
#3Maybe I'm just a huge nerd, but this is awesome.
The product I work on ends up doing a lot of work for order processing, stock management, logistics, etc. There is no industry standard ontology for anything. All off the shelf software works in different ways. Terminology is somewhat consistent but not at all formally defined.
The idea of being able to build software (or human processes) around a well understood ontology is great. Full software interoperability is a long way off, but building integration points is rarely the challenge when integrating, the real challenge is in adapting one way of thinking about a problem to fit someone else's entirely different model.
If this is close enough to reality then it doesn't even need lots of parties on board with "supporting" it, they could already be close enough. Having it all written down is a great next step that should enable a lot more products to enter the marketplace.
Re: MovieLabs publishes common ontology for production
#4Eli5?
Re: MovieLabs publishes common ontology for production
#5This is great - now we can have algorithmic production of output from data-driven script bots!
Re: MovieLabs publishes common ontology for production
#6Maybe I'm just a huge nerd, but this is awesome. The product I work on ends up doing a lot of work for order processing, stock management, logistics, etc. There is no industry standard ontology for anything. All off the shelf software works in different ways. Terminology is somewhat consistent but not at all formally defined. The idea of being able to build software (or human processes) around a well understood ontol…
Between ISO, UN CEFACT/OASIS, the now irrelevant/repivoted OMG, etc it isn’t like the idea is a new one or that anything isn’t written down - there are formal standards (insert xkcd here). The incentives for widespread adoption are just not there.
Re: MovieLabs publishes common ontology for production
#7Are there any real success stories for "ontolgies" like this? It seems like a lot of them are made, but they're ultimately not that useful.
I've been forced to use some, and it seems that someone got paid a lot of money to come up with something that's incomplete and poorly models the domain. So the net change is some XML doodads that no one really wanted or needed.
Re: MovieLabs publishes common ontology for production
#8Eli5?
The movie and film production process currently involves a large web of organizations, including both traditional movie production studios and software development firms. These firms have to be able to communicate effectively and work together, so they need a common language that they can use to describe concepts.
Since (to paraphrase) the second hardest thing about software development is naming things, and software developers/filmmakers are likely to be unfamiliar with the other field's terminology, this guide is an attempt to provide suggested names of things such that everyone understands one another.
Re: MovieLabs publishes common ontology for production
#9Are there any real success stories for "ontolgies" like this? It seems like a lot of them are made, but they're ultimately not that useful. I've been forced to use some, and it seems that someone got paid a lot of money to come up with something that's incomplete and poorly models the domain. So the net change is some XML doodads that no one really wanted or needed.
Modern production pipelines have a lot of dynamic human fueled workflows with orchestration - having a common syntax definitely helps those in the control room and operating systems and tools have a common way to exchange - especially in a remote setup. The netflix production team also has done a great job of standardizing the vocabulary across their production systems.
A lot of these ontologies depend on adoption in the organization and enforcement and without that these efforts really are show and of low utility.
Re: MovieLabs publishes common ontology for production
#10Are there any real success stories for "ontolgies" like this? It seems like a lot of them are made, but they're ultimately not that useful. I've been forced to use some, and it seems that someone got paid a lot of money to come up with something that's incomplete and poorly models the domain. So the net change is some XML doodads that no one really wanted or needed.
Disparate ontologies are ripe in the medical field (SNOMED, ICD 9/10, etc) and there are companies[1] trying to map between them for better interopt between healthcare networks.