discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work

[Carol Spears <carol AT gimp.org>]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 05:28:13PM -0700, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
> Carol Spears wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
i kind of liked dtd.  it made sense and it seemed useful.  i can't
remember the reason i said no to schema when i was making my plans,
probably it had to do with relearning the same things.  the only problem
i really saw with it was that it was difficult to change once it is
written.

> 
> >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.
> 
basically, the first time i heard of it was when i saw the creative
commons photoshop plug-in.  learning about something when your something
is already doing this work is not the best introduction.  it is
difficult to present it as something i need.

frankly, i have only seen it offered in platform specific ways so far.
now, i fully admit to not knowing all of my free software image making
options.  i am one girl trying to make the same image go from my
computer to an html format and also to a latex format.  is lyx using
xmp and i missed it?


> 
> >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.
> 
do you have examples of xmp being used to make latex pages?

right now, especially since the bulk of my stuff is photographs, i am
moving pixel information around.  it will be interesting the day that
someone converts a photograph to svg.  gipp might need to upgrade after
such a feat.

> >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.
> 
gimps experience with exif information is that sometimes it is wrong.
my approach to exif data was to offer the chance to fix it for the gipp
and the xcf (or whatever format gimp is publishing the image for you
in).

when i import xmp information, it would probably be best to check that
as well.

> >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.
> 
speaking of xhtml, i am already having problems because i agreed to try
to validate my xhtml.  why bother when you can write your own valid
stuff and you know it is information that is correct and that you need?

> * Adobe seem to have been quite careful to use existing open technology 
> and standards to create XMP.
> 
i only saw one plug-in that worked on one application to deliver this
information that my plug-in already does better for an application that
works on more platforms.

i promise to be equally careful about using existing technology and
standards.  in fact, i guess that there is a chance i have to use
higher standards because of some (perhaps ill-fated) choices i made.

> * The XMP spec spells out how to use RDF to encorporate Dublin Core, 
> EXIF and all sorts of standard info.
> 
that sounds like a simple how to.  

> * The XMP spec also spells out how to make something specific if the 
> need is not already covered.
> 
> 
> XMP is your friend.
> :-)

except you want me to stop working on something that is already working
well and predictably and start using something i probably need to fix.
all those things you mentioned are simply too easy to author yourself.

if it becomes an issue, that one app will learn how to import gipp.

thanks,
carol