discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work

["Jon A. Cruz" <jon AT joncruz.org>]

Carol Spears wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 03:57:20PM -0700, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>  
>
> > So you're embedding XML in image files, do I understand correctly?
> >
> >    
> eventually.  i consider the dtd to be the crucial thing before i call
> anything my plug-in writes "xml"
>  
Well... that or a schema. I do know that may things have hit the wall in 
regards to running up against limitations of DTD's.


> it is the nature of xml (at least for some of us) to be used to define
> information in a way that meets your own needs.  at least, this is
> always what i thought was neat about it.  of course, such flexibility
> leads to ideas like this.
>
> driving me is the frustrating situation in which many of the existing
> options do not work on my operating system, or change so they dont work.  
> if i am going to put the time into this, i am going to end up with 
> information that i can share and information i can count on not changing 
> too often and information that i can trust.
>  
Ahhh...

And this is where I think I see that you just have some misconceptions 
in regards to XMP. First and foremost is that XMP is platform-specific. 
It's not.


> as i said earlier, my app works on so many operating systems.  i am
> gathering information that other plug-ins i have written can use (i have
> some really simple gallery scripts).  just as the the photoshop plug-in
> writes XMP for adobe, my plug-in will be writing GIPP for gimp.  there
> is a chance that there will be a user base of only one person.  it is
> being written to help me and some of my friends with their image
> licensing problems.  
>
> you can clearly see how lazy i am.  i dont want to have to paste
> information or load a template even.  one toggle and its off ....
>
> GIPP will be a text xml file, so it could be useful to many.
>  

But in essence so is XMP, but more so.


> > There are already at least three fairly accepted embedded metadata 
> > formats for images -- IPTC, EXIF, and XMP, the last being RDF-based and 
> > mirroring all of the fields available in the first two.
> >
> >    
> we have had problems with exif containing inaccurate rotation
> information already.  XMP is as useful to gimp as GIPP is to photoshop.
> i have never heard of IPTC.  it will be useful to gimp users to get the
> exif information and fix it if some other application wrote incorrect
> information to it.
>
>  
Actually, not.

XMP is a useful to Gimp as EXIF is to Gimp. Perhaps even more so.

XMP even has specifically addressed EXIF data.



> > I urge you, and everyone who writes similarly, to use one of these 
> > established metadata formats when embedding metadata in images.  Use 
> > whatever you want for external files.
> >
> >    
> what is the big deal about using xml then?
>
> the first big selling feature i responded to when xml first hit all of
> my media was "flexibility".  XMP is handled by an application which does
> not work on my operating system and this is one of those inoperability
> issues that i did not have too much to do with.
>  

And Bingo!!!! The big misconception.

Yes, Adobe puts out tools and SDKs that hand XMP and are 
platfor-specific, but XMP itself is not. XMP is just RDF done in a 
certain way, and thus is just as cross-platform as RDF and XML.

* XMP is basically just a specific dialect of RDF. One could say that 
XMP is to RDF as XHTML is to XML.

* Adobe seem to have been quite careful to use existing open technology 
and standards to create XMP.

* The XMP spec spells out how to use RDF to encorporate Dublin Core, 
EXIF and all sorts of standard info.

* The XMP spec also spells out how to make something specific if the 
need is not already covered.


XMP is your friend.
:-)