W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > April 2010

Re: comments on OMR 1.0 mapping to IPTC Schemas

From: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:00:09 +0200
Message-ID: <t2tba4134971004160500j8db620baq26bd253095524b7f@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Michael Steidl (IPTC)" <mdirector@iptc.org>
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Hi Michael,

2010/4/16 Michael Steidl (IPTC) <mdirector@iptc.org>

>  Hi Felix
>
>
>
> The issue I raised is about “what are you mapping”. To my understanding
> from reading the specs it is a mapping between metadata properties  - which
> are grouped by what? By their namespace? Or by an “existing format”, and
> what is a format – a named specification?
>
>
>
> The IPTC as a standardisation organisation would prefer that properties are
> considered as intellectual property of their makers. Thus a mapping is
> established between the ma: properties and the Dublin Core properties and
> not XMP which is only using Dublin Core properties but not having specified
> them. Further the mapping between ma:title and dc:title should be applicable
> regardless of the format which is used to annotate the Dublin Core Title
> property.
>
>
>
> To add: I understand what you are aiming at with the API below, but this
> would work in exactly the same way if the mapping is named “to Dublic Core”
> and not “to XMP”. So what I’m pointing at is more a naming and IP issue and
> not a technical issue.
>

Understand. I tend to disagree that this is not a technical issue: if you do
not enlist the potential field names which may occur in a metadata file, the
API would need to check for everything before doing the mapping. So having
the information available "looking for ma:title in XMP files, only search
for dc:title" makes that easier.

Besides, again on the technical level, XMP defines value types like LangAlt
for dc:description, which are not available in Dublin Core itself. So having
a place to gather these types is very for the API.

Your IP concerns are very important, and I am thinking of how to implement
them while keeping such information . Would it help  if the table and column
3 would be renamed "Schemas used in XMP", and to add a statement to the
specification like this:

"XMP allows for using properties which are not from the XMP namespace, like
Dublin Core. The specification of mappings between these properties and the
Media Annotations Working Group vocabulary does not entail any intellectual
property relation between the maintainers of these properties, e.g. the
Dublin Core Metadata Initative, and XMP."

?

Best regards,

Felix


>
>
> Br
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* felix.sasaki@googlemail.com [mailto:felix.sasaki@googlemail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Felix Sasaki
> *Sent:* Friday, April 16, 2010 12:05 PM
>
> *To:* Michael Steidl (IPTC)
> *Cc:* public-media-annotation@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: comments on OMR 1.0 mapping to IPTC Schemas
>
>
>
> Hello Michael,
>
>
> thank you for your very useful and detailed comments. I am not working on
> this mapping, but on the XMP mapping table, so I have a comment related to
> that below.
>
> 2010/4/15 Michael Steidl (IPTC) <mdirector@iptc.org>
>
> .....
>
> ------------
>
> In addition to this review of the IPTC mapping I would like to add one more
> comments:
>
>
>
> * as the IPTC is very involved in XMP we would like to point out, that the
> “Table 1: XMP” is misleading: the “XMP Attributes” like dc:contributor etc
> are definitely not part of the XMP specifications, as the namespace prefix
> indicates they are part of the Dublin Core specification. XMP is a
> completely metadata property agnostic framework based on RDF/XML – and Adobe
> makes only use of some properties in their implementation for Adobe
> products, like Photoshop etc. But it would be fully XMP compliant to have an
> XMP packet without a single Dublin Core property but Descriptions,
> Identifiers etc. from other namespaces.
>
>
> Sure. However, keep in mind that the ontology is supposed to be used to
> provide mapping relations for an API. Below is a sample method, adapted from
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Apr/0058.html
>
>
> maobject1 = setMAResource ("video.flv");
> maobject1.getProperty("title");
>
> So you want to be able to get the title of a media resource - which is
> AFAICT stored as dc:title in XMP.
> Of course there might media files without dc:title, as you pointed out.
> Because of that I would map ma:title to let's say:
> - dc:title, exact mapping, dataype langalt (allows for language
> alternatives)
> - xmpDM:album, related mapping, album title in the XMP Dynamic Media schema
> - xmp:Nickname related mapping, text datatype, XMP Basic schema
> - xmp:Label, related mapping, text XMP Basic schema
>
> Also the XMP mapping table needs a thorough revision, and I am currently at
> it, with more updates later today.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Felix
>
>
>
>
> Many thanks for this work as we see that NewsML-G2 provides one of the most
> complete mappings to OMR of all referenced metadata schemas, so it may make
> sense to stay in touch.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> ==================================================
>
> Sent by:
>
> Michael Steidl
>
> Managing Director of the IPTC <mdirector@iptc.org>
>
> International Press Telecommunications Council - http://www.iptc.org/
>
> Business office address:
>
> 20 Garrick Street, London WC2E 9BT, United Kingdom
>
> Registered in England, company no 101096
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 12:00:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 16 April 2010 12:00:51 GMT