RE: comments on OMR 1.0 mapping to IPTC Schemas

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.

 

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.htm
l 


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/>
http://www.iptc.org/

Business office address: 

20 Garrick Street, London WC2E 9BT, United Kingdom

Registered in England, company no 101096