similar to: Feedback on XML metadata namespace

Daniel Aleksandersen wrote: > Hi again list, > > Attached is a much improved version of yesterday's draft. Introducing the > audio:collection:artwork element to deal with album cover graphics and > such. > > After giving it much though; I decided to drop the audio:preformers and > audio:recording elements. They have been replaced by audio:entities which > is

Daniel, nobody has accused you of reinventing the wheel. You give up too easily. If you want to develop a standard, it takes a lot of discussion and input - and it takes diplomacy. Attacking people and attacking the community will not be helpful. You have asked for feedback - feedback has been given. Now it's time to think and digest. I for one have been motivated by the topic of discussion,

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

Hi list, On 2007-09-10 Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > 2) we need a XML annotation format for audio - in particular for music - > that is more structured than vorbiscomment (and this probably > applies to video, too) Above, Silvia sums up nicely what I used three days and a tone of emails to say. (Though she did not say that this format should replace Vorbis comments all together, which is

On 11/09/2007, Daniel Aleksandersen <aleksandersen+xiphlists@runbox.com> wrote: > On Tuesday 11. September 2007 01:34:35 Ian Malone wrote: > > Daniel Aleksandersen wrote: > > > By the way, I have bee discussing Dublin Core ('DC') with the > > > developers of the Atom 1.0 specification. It seams the reason they > > > created atom:rights instead of

Hi again Ivo and the Xiph ogg-dev emailing list, This email is meant to present two blockers for continued development of the XML based Multimedia Metadata Format (M3F) (MDMF page in the wiki). This format is intended to replace comments as a way of including descriptions of metadata contained in the Ogg container format. For instance title, production year, actors, producers, and so on for

On Tuesday 18. September 2007 14:32:45 Ian Malone wrote: > On 11/09/2007, Ian Malone <ibmalone@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/09/2007, Daniel Aleksandersen <aleksandersen+xiphlists@runbox.com> wrote: > > > On Tuesday 11. September 2007 01:34:35 Ian Malone wrote: > > > > I'd be interested which ones. DC is a bit nebulous, but that gives > > >

Daniel Aleksandersen wrote: > On Saturday 08. September 2007 11:40:05 Ian Malone wrote: >> Daniel Aleksandersen wrote: >>> Hi again list, >>> >>> Attached is a much improved version of yesterday's draft. Introducing >>> the audio:collection:artwork element to deal with album cover graphics >>> and such. >>> >>> After

What I've gotten out of this discussion so far: 1) we need to introduce a means in which to do captions; this could be done through adding a "caption" element to CMML, or in another time-continuous annotation format; so far I am not sure which would be the better way 2) we need a XML annotation format for audio - in particular for music - that is more structured than vorbiscomment

On Saturday 08. September 2007 11:40:05 Ian Malone wrote: > Daniel Aleksandersen wrote: > > Hi again list, > > > > Attached is a much improved version of yesterday's draft. Introducing > > the audio:collection:artwork element to deal with album cover graphics > > and such. > > > > After giving it much though; I decided to drop the audio:preformers

Daniel, these are all good ideas and worth progressing. However, it may be better not to merge too many goals in one format (MPEG-7 did that and ended up as a big mess). So, I suggest to start by structuring the types of things you want - then finding out which parts belong where into existing formats such as vorbis comment, Skeleton and CMML, and only then start to develop a new format. For

Hi again list, Attached is a much improved version of yesterday's draft. Introducing the audio:collection:artwork element to deal with album cover graphics and such. After giving it much though; I decided to drop the audio:preformers and audio:recording elements. They have been replaced by audio:entities which is supposed to contain all involved organisations and persons.

On Monday 10. September 2007 01:10:44 Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On 9/10/07, Daniel Aleksandersen <aleksandersen@runbox.com> wrote: > > It is indeed necessary. I hope this format will be a huge leap in > > metadata descriptions for media content. Not only for music, but any > > media found in Oggs. > > You are thinking too small. Such standards

On 11/14/08, David Flynn <davidf+nntp at woaf.net> wrote: > Correct; there is no metadata handling capability in the current > mapping spec. I'd suggest at some point to look into separate stream solution for metadata, perhaps M3F [1]. -Ivo [1] http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/M3F

On 10/09/2007, Daniel Aleksandersen <aleksandersen+xiphlists@runbox.com> wrote: > On Monday 10. September 2007 23:39:50 Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > > 2) we need a XML annotation format for audio - in particular for music > > - that is more structured than vorbiscomment (and this probably > > applies to video, too) > > It would have to apply to any kind of media. >

Daniel Aleksandersen <aleksandersen+xiphlists@runbox.com> wrote: ... > Since the URI attribute can describe locations (URLs), the format could work > as a RDF document; being an external resource describing external content. > But of course the metadata would be in the Ogg stream-container-thingy > (...somehow. help. input?) in the case of the Ogg format. As this would be XML, I

So wiki discussion on the new metadata format is ongoing. I'd like to move some things about a bit. MDMF is a discussion of the metadata XML format itself, Metadata gives some background an overview and a few old sample cases. I'm not sure how many people read the wiki talk page so I thought I'd ask here if there were any objections before doing it. What would most likely happen

Hi ogg-dev list, I am not trying to ?get someone?. But I though this form would indeed prove successful in making my point. Here we go: I got accused of ?reinventing the wheel? for this little media description format of mine. Fare enough. But I wanted to show everyone why it is sometimes best to sometings that has been done before all over. See the attached document. It uses existing

I've put together the first attempt to defining an RDF metadata vocabulary for use with the CD Index/MusicBrainz/OggVorbis. If you care about metadata issues, please take a look at: http://www.cdindex.org/MM I've included a section for video specific stuff, but everything that I originally had in there is being covered by the MM:Contributors section. The Contributors stuff will allow

Daniel Aleksandersen wrote: > By the way, I have bee discussing Dublin Core (?DC?) with the developers of > the Atom 1.0 specification. It seams the reason they created atom:rights > instead of using dc:rights were just about what I thought it was: They > though DC was too loosely defined. Their own atom:rights element were > designed to more clearly define what the element