Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
It is to this second approach that we shall give preference to in this topic. From
the third chapter onwards, we shall see how we tried to integrate the distinction
between the different textual levels into the
metalanguage of description*
of the
universe of discourse*
of an audiovisual archive. As we shall see, such a
metalanguage of description is made manifest in the form of a
library of models of
description*
which forms fairly complex configurations from which stem the
different elements of a set of
metalinguistic resources*
which we shall present in
greater detail in Part Four of this topic.
Finally, the third approach views the text as a
social practice
or as an entity
around which a social practice is organized. According to that approach, greater
consideration is given to the activities around the text (as a compositional and
stratified entity) throughout its entire “lifetime”, i.e. from its conception and birth
through to its eventual disappearance or transformation into another textual entity. In
other words, all texts necessarily form part of a network of practices and activities.
These practices and activities contribute to the
format
and
profile
of the text, and are
themselves tributaries of its identity, its specific profile. Thus, an audiovisual text
made up of a montage of a series of extracts from interviews with researches about a
specific problem necessarily possesses its own particular identity, its own profile,
which (
a priori
) renders it more or less apt for, or else resistant to, adaptation and
exploitation in specific use contexts.
In the context of the Audiovisual Research Archives Program
12
which we set up
in 2001, we were interested in the
text as a social practice
. Given that the ARA
program was an R&D program dedicated to the constitution, diffusion, conservation
and exploitation of scientific and cultural heritage using digital audiovisual
technology, one of its main goals was to define and “implement” the main stages
and activities making up the
workflow of production and diffusion of audiovisual
heritage
. This framework is described in greater detail in [STO 11a].
The crucial point we wish to underline here is the fact that, from one stage to
another, not only the role but also the identity of the text changes, in accordance
with the tasks and activities in question. However, this has direct consequences, e.g.
on the way in which we consider what a
corpus of texts
(in our case, audiovisual
texts) is, and how we treat it [STO 11a].
Thus, let us draw the distinction, as discussed above (see section 1.3), between
functionally different specialized types of textual corpora: corpora which document
a “field” (of research, for example), corpora which serve to document a body of
heritage (for instance, with a view to being distributed on the Web in the form of an
audiovisual archive) and which can vary greatly in relation to field corpora (in terms
12 See the official portal of the ARA Program: http://www.archivesaudiovisuelles.fr.
