ogg dev - Dec 2007 - Multimedia Metadata Format (M3F) draft

Hi ogg-dev list,

I have improved the format formally known as Media Description and 
Metadata (MDMF) for the Ogg Container Format.

Please have a look at the M3F page in the wiki http://wiki.xiph.org/M3F

The format have been simplified and designed primarily with audio and 
movie recordings in mind. The old version focused on providing separate 
tools for each media type, were the new version treats every media type 
as a media resources.

I welcome all feedback!

The two sections that really need work is the related texts and 
performers. I do not know if lyrics and subtitles (text resources) needs 
to be described in any way. The performers section is basically finished 
but needs work on the role and as attributes.

Take special note of the self regulated audience element. I do need 
feedback on this. It is intended to be used by file sharing clients and 
search engines to filter content. It is also intended for parental 
control. The element and it's attribute is based on the great work done 
by ICRA.
-- 
Daniel Aleksandersen

On 04/12/2007, Daniel Aleksandersen <aleksandersen+xiphlists@runbox.com>
wrote:
> Hi ogg-dev list,
>
> I have improved the format formally known as Media Description and
> Metadata (MDMF) for the Ogg Container Format.
>
> Please have a look at the M3F page in the wiki http://wiki.xiph.org/M3F
>
> The format have been simplified and designed primarily with audio and
> movie recordings in mind. The old version focused on providing separate
> tools for each media type, were the new version treats every media type
> as a media resources.
>
> I welcome all feedback!
>
I think this is a big improvement over the last time I looked.
> The two sections that really need work is the related texts and
> performers. I do not know if lyrics and subtitles (text resources) needs
> to be described in any way. The performers section is basically finished
> but needs work on the role and as attributes.
>
(comments added to wiki)
I still feel there's something not quite right about having instruments
on the same level as roles/contributions rather than one level below.
To me it seems that if an actor plays a part then their character has
the same type of relationship to their role as an actor as an instrument
has to a musician's role as an instrumentalist.

Source is a bit weak currently. If it's going to use a fixed vocabularly
it needs at least 'other' in addition to 'unknown'. Also a
little ill-defined
in a way; you might have ripped it off a CD or encoded from FLAC,
but where was it before that?  I can see this might be useful for
organising music collections though.
> Take special note of the self regulated audience element. I do need
> feedback on this. It is intended to be used by file sharing clients and
> search engines to filter content. It is also intended for parental
> control. The element and it's attribute is based on the great work done
> by ICRA.
Nice feature to have.

-- 
imalone

On 2007-12-04 13:16, Ian Malone wrote:
> On 04/12/2007, Daniel Aleksandersen wrote:
> > The two sections that really need work is the related texts and
> > performers. I do not know if lyrics and subtitles (text resources)
> > needs to be described in any way. The performers section is basically
> > finished but needs work on the role and as attributes.
>
> (comments added to wiki)
> I still feel there's something not quite right about having instruments
> on the same level as roles/contributions rather than one level below.
> To me it seems that if an actor plays a part then their character has
> the same type of relationship to their role as an actor as an
> instrument has to a musician's role as an instrumentalist.
Introducing a ?role? child element of the metadata:performer element would 
fix this. But then the instrument/artist-role should be changed in this 
way as well. Other input?
> Source is a bit weak currently. If it's going to use a fixed
> vocabularly it needs at least 'other' in addition to
'unknown'. Also a
> little ill-defined in a way; you might have ripped it off a CD or
> encoded from FLAC, but where was it before that?  I can see this might
> be useful for organising music collections though.
If it is unknown than no data/attribute would be included. The data does 
not exist; so why include anything? :-) But the vocabulary is not 
finished. ?Other? may be included but I do not think it will be good for 
anything. It is not good for sorting or anything. The valuses I have 
provided are the ones I could think of. Others must contribute as well!
-- 
Daniel Aleksandersen