Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
the elaboration of interactive analytical forms similar to that shown in Figure 3.2.
This would certainly involve the development of hundreds of forms which would be
difficult to control by the different parts involved in the process of modeling (and
monitoring) of forms, analysis of audiovisual corpora and publication of these
analyses in the form of thematic or special access portals.
Hence, the possibility mentioned above (of displaying reasoned sets of
conceptual terms in an interactive working form and allowing the analyst to select
those which are pertinent for his work) seems to constitute one possible solution to
drastically limit the number of interactive forms dedicated to analysis of audiovisual
content. At any rate, this is the path we chose to follow, developing a library of basic
forms for analysis of the ARA collection's audiovisual content.
Let us return to our example from Figure 5.6. We said that the analyst could
define his knowledge object by jointly selecting [Civilization] and [Cultural
construct]. However, he may also content himself with choosing only one
conceptual term - either [Civilization] or [Cultural construct]. By opting for one or
other of these two solutions, the analyst signals that, depending on the situation, he
is carrying out either a description of a civilization without reference to a particular
cultural construct, or a description of a cultural construct without reference to a
particular civilization.
In terms of modeling the referential domain of knowledge of the universe of
discourse of an archive (in our case, that of the CCA archives), this may, however,
pose problems.
By selecting only the conceptual term [Civilization] or only [Cultural construct],
the analyst essentially throws off the very specific structure which defines the
knowledge object of the form shown in Figure 3.2, i.e. referential description of
subjects and topics which deal with (native American) civilizations
in relation
to a
particular cultural construct.
Thus,
a priori
, the analyst can use the form shown in Figure 4.2 to describe any
audiovisual text which is about civilizations (on the American continent) “as such”
and with no relation to a cultural construct - or indeed in relation to completely
different knowledge objects from those for which the form in question is intended to
be used, and for the analysis of which there may be other forms in the library of
forms for analyzing audiovisual content.
Similarly, the analyst may opt to use the aforementioned form to define just a
cultural construct (on the American continent) without relation to a particular
civilization. For instance, he may use the form to describe an audiovisual text which
