-
Taxonomy anyone?
I’ve been delving more deeply into the Keywording structure of X recently and I’ve realized that I’m such a rookie at taxonomy that I’m pretty sure that I’m falling short of a solid coherent strategy for doing this properly.
I also believe that if I approach this thoughtfully here in my early months of building FCP-X projects – I can likely build a more valuable lasting system of long-term project storage and retrieval for the future.
X allows us unlimited keyword tags inside the Project, but what about the best “outside” naming structures for Projects, Events etc. – is there a better strategy than just imagining random keywords? , What is a good overall keyword strategy? What does a good clip ID system look like? I have a rack of 300-500 field tapes and masters on my wall from past shoots. If I’d tagged and ID’d all the scenes in those, I’d have an incredible asset to make my editing life easier. Now I have a system built into X that will let me do this IF I establish smart practices early and stick to them. That’s what I’m interested in learning.
So where do I start?
Are numerical tags best? Alpha-numeric combos? What about sort-friendly practices like “leading zeros” in numbers?
Maybe someday I might need to find the clip with “the girl in the yellow dress” – so does that means I should consider “girl”, “yellow”, and “dress”, ALL as tags, or should I do “Girl yellow dress” all as ONE tag? How many characters are too many for a good tag?
Database structures for video assets are nothing new. TV stations and others have been doing them for decades. But suddenly, we $299 video program editors have the same tools built into OUR editing software.
I’d simply like to learn to do this better than just opening the keyword editor and typing in whatever comes to mind.
I initially thought I’d reach out to the “hive mind” here and see if anyone wants to participate in a simple discussion about this, but I’m a bit concerned that since this forum gets kinda contentious that someone with a great idea might feel hesitant to toss it out for fear that someone will quash it by reflex.
So I’m thinking a short run, limited purpose “email group” might be a smarter way to do this.
I’m willing to volunteer a bit of time each evening to concatenating folks contributions into a single un-edited document (with strict idea attribution), then re-send the result to the participants for discussion.
Kind of an informal FCP-X “taxonomy” working group.
If and when we come to a group consensus about stuff that sounds like the best ideas, we can post it if that’s the will of the tribe.
My email address is linked under my name.
If you want to participate, just drop me an email with the word “Taxonomy” in the subject.
Thanks for considering this.
Bill Davis.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor