commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Farrukh Najmi <>
Subject Re: [IMAGING] Getting EXIF and IPTC metadata using metadata and image format neutral code
Date Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:59:12 GMT

There are two specs:

 1. IPTC Standard Photo Metadata 2008 IPTC Core Specification Version 1.1
    IPTC Extension Specification Version 1.0
    Document Revision 2
    (IPTC-PhotoMetadata-2008 spec)
 2. IPTC - NAA Information Interchange Model Version 4
    <> (IIM spec)

The IPTC-PhotoMetadata-2008 spec suprecedes the IIM spec from what I 
have read. We should therefor be implementing the 
IPTC-PhotoMetadata-2008 (the spec) and not the IIM spec.

The TODO comment is about the properties that are in IIM spec but not in 
IPTC-PhotoMetadata-2008. I have chosen to leave them there for now. All 
the field values are aligned with the XMP property id 
values from the spec. That was the main change in the patch. I think we 
should change field to IptcTypes.propertyId field and 
perhaps later add a name field that aligns with the Name field values 
from the spec. BTW, I would be happy to have a skype (skype id: 
farrukh_najmi) call to discuss this if you would like.

On 07/08/2012 11:34 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> You ask "TODO: What to do about properties not seen in
> IPTC-PhotoMetadata-2008 (e.g. "Record Version"))"
> Look at
> Scroll down to "IPTC ApplicationRecord Tags"
> Those names seem to resemble what is in
> page 24
> onwards.
> The names in your patch differ from that list.
> ?
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Farrukh Najmi
> <> wrote:
>> Oops. Here is the correct file this time.
>> On 07/07/2012 01:39 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>>> Hi Farrukh
>>> Your patch is just an empty file.
>>> Regards
>>> Damjan
>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Farrukh Najmi
>>> <> wrote:
>>>> Hi Damjan,
>>>> Attached is the patch for implementing the proposed change outlined in
>>>> bullets below.
>>>> Please review and then commit if satisfied or discuss further. Thanks.
>>>> On 07/06/2012 02:29 PM, Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>>>>> An example of a metadata property that has no IIM mapping defined is
>>>>> Name:
>>>>> Scene Code, XMP property id: Scene (page 15 of 55 in spec)
>>>>> On 07/06/2012 02:25 PM, Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Damjan,
>>>>>> Thanks for the +1. As I started on this patch I made some observations
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the IPTC-PhotoMetadata-2008.pdfspec:
>>>>>>     * Not all metadata properties have an IIM mapping defined. For
>>>>>>       we will have to invent a type code. I propose we assign codes
>>>>>>       starting at 10000 arbitrarily in such cases
>>>>>>     * Every field does have an XMP property id at present. I am not
>>>>>>       if there is any guarantee that future fields will have an XMP
>>>>>>       property id. I think we should continue with XMP property id
>>>>>> field but if in future versions there is no
>>>>>>       property id then the backup would be to use the Name field
>>>>>>       the spec
>>>>>> The only other alternative I can think of for field
>>>>>> issue
>>>>>> is to use the Name field from the spec which is guaranteed to be
>>>>>> present,
>>>>>> will never be translated but has the issue that it has white space
>>>>>> its
>>>>>> content. My preference is to do what is proposed in bullets above.
>>>>>> Comments? Thanks.



  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message