commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Damjan Jovanovic <damjan....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [IMAGING] Getting EXIF and IPTC metadata using metadata and image format neutral code
Date Sun, 08 Jul 2012 15:34:31 GMT
You ask "TODO: What to do about properties not seen in
IPTC-PhotoMetadata-2008 (e.g. "Record Version"))"

Look at http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/TagNames/IPTC.html
Scroll down to "IPTC ApplicationRecord Tags"
Those names seem to resemble what is in
http://www.iptc.org/std/IIM/4.1/specification/IIMV4.1.pdf page 24
onwards.

The names in your patch differ from that list.

?

On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Farrukh Najmi
<farrukh@wellfleetsoftware.com> 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
>> <farrukh@wellfleetsoftware.com> 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 these
>>>>>      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 sure
>>>>>      if there is any guarantee that future fields will have an XMP
>>>>>      property id. I think we should continue with XMP property id for
>>>>>      IptcTypes.name field but if in future versions there is no XMP
>>>>>      property id then the backup would be to use the Name field from
>>>>>      the spec
>>>>>
>>>>> The only other alternative I can think of for IptcTypes.name 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 in
>>>>> its
>>>>> content. My preference is to do what is proposed in bullets above.
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments? Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh
>
> Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message