similar to: M3F: Multimedia Metadata Format

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 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 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

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, After discussing the [lack of] metadata standards on the irc://irc.freenode.net/#Vorbis channel yesterday I figured I had to contribute to this process. Attached is a sample XML formatted metadata sheet describing a song; and shows off other media type elements as well. How this is to be embedded in the OGG container is not my field. I have only spent a couple of hours

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. >

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

The biggest problem with Vorbis comments are too loose specifications and too little standardisation. Another problem is attribution of involved parties. Currently only the ARTIST field name is supported in software. More standardised field names need to be worked out for organisations and persons involved in the production of the recording. See:

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 list, The metadata discussion seams to have died out again. I will try to revive it again. Here is the goals and progress of this metadata exercise so far: The main goals this far have been to: * Provide an all over richer description of media resources in Ogg container. Primarily not technical data, but other things.) * Attribute more parties involved in music/video production. * Clarify

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

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

Has anyone gotten CID from Bell Canada to work properly with *? We have our * box down at our datacentre in St Louis, and whenever we call it from a Bell Canada Telephone line, all we see is '' for the CID. I did some digging on google and the mailing lists and couldn't find anything pertaining directly to Bell-Canada and * CID, but didn't find much. I did however find :

Hi Silvia, I really have to ask you: Have you even tried to describe media using the excising solutions? I don't mean adding subtitles and editing stuff. I mean really say what a Ogg file contins. There is no working wheels for this. Vorbis comments--used in FLAC too--can describe content with a very limited field names (and badly enforced standards). I said from the start that I have no

On 6/4/12, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: > On 06/04/2012 04:08 PM, Martin Leese wrote: ... >> The optimal solution is described at: >> https://wiki.xiph.org/XMLEmbedding > > As that page says, "This page is for development of a specification for > embedding XML streams in Ogg.". "XML streams" are not simply XML > documents. They are _temporally

On Saturday 08. September 2007 19:11:54 Carsten Haese wrote: > On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 17:08 +0200, Daniel Aleksandersen wrote: > > I feel that these ?Vorbis comments? are not sufficient. There is not > > even a standard for their field names. > > Actually, there is: http://xiph.org/vorbis/doc/v-comment.html No standard. But ?Below is a proposed, minimal list of standard field

Daniel Aleksandersen wrote: > On Monday 17. September 2007 07:47:19 David K. Gasaway wrote: >> Even today, I use my own "metadata format" -- essentially a superset of >> vorbis comments. There is one file per release, even with a multi-disc >> release. As a final part of the ripping process, I apply this metadata >> to the FLAC or Vorbis files. > > Why

On 9 Sep 2007 at 23:11, Daniel Aleksandersen wrote: > To me, Vorbis comments are insufficient. Ask anyone playing in an ensamble > if they would like recognition. Ask the record label holding the rights to > a song. Ask the music geek that wants his music collection sorted by > something other than artist, album, or release year. They would all prefer > this to Vorbis comments.

On Monday 10. September 2007 00:00:43 David K. Gasaway wrote: > On 9 Sep 2007 at 23:11, Daniel Aleksandersen wrote: > > To me, Vorbis comments are insufficient. Ask anyone playing in an > > ensamble if they would like recognition. Ask the record label holding > > the rights to a song. Ask the music geek that wants his music > > collection sorted by something other than

Daniel Aleksandersen 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. > > I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Some