I mentioned sub-tagging in an earlier post. Here's a more in-depth mail on
what i thought of.
One of the debates going on here are whether ARTIST is worthy of life.
Another is whether the average user will bother filling in the detailed info
Jonathan wants. Of course, all tags are optional, but nevertheless we should
have a tagging-system that pleases _the_users_, that is, everybody:
1. Make it simple.
2. Make it (optionally!) detailed.
Based on this i propose the following tagging and sub-tagging system, which
is easy, simple, flexible, detailed for those who want it.
Tags are for simple comments, and has the form:
TITLE=Title
Subtags are for detailed comments, and has the form:
ARTIST=COMPOSER=Xz
ARTIST=PERFORMER=Yz
This way, detailed info about the artist (as most mortal beeings think of it)
are available while still beeing part of the simpler standard, which as a
bonus also is backwards-compatible with existing players. If a player
supports the subtags, it will display them in the detailed form:
"Composer: Xz"
"Performer: Yz"
If the player supports only simple tags, it will show the subtags as a whole:
"Artist: COMPOSER=Xz, PERFORMER=Yz"
The tagger can also invent his/her own subtags, so that the comment:
ARTIST=DRUMMER=Zz
will be understood by applications as a subfield belonging to the ARTIST
superfield.
Also, if the tagger don't get a warm, fuzzy feeling inside when thinking of
subtagging his/her oggs, he/she may choose to skip the whole thing and have
it the plain and simple way:
ARTIST=Yz
The point here is to make the tagging system a helping phriendly thing for
both users wanting simplicity, and users wanting detail.
Now, on to the proposed tags:
Supertag "ARTIST":
Subtag "COMPOSER"
The composer of the work.
Subtag "LYRICIST"
The one who wrote the lyrics.
Subtag "PERFORMER"
The one performing the work.
Subtag "ENSEMBLE"
The group performing.
Subtag "CONDUCTOR"
Conductor, if any.
Subtag "AUTHOR"
The original author.
Supertag "WORK":
Subtag "TITLE"
The title of the work.
Subtag "VERSION"
The version (eg live)
Subtag "PART"
Part of the work.
Subtag "OPUS"
Opus.
Subtag "TYPE"
Type.
Subtag "GENRE"
Genre.
Subtag "COPYRIGHT"
Copyright.
..
Supertag "ORIGIN":
Subtag "ALBUM"
Album this work came from, if any.
Subtag "MEDIA"
Media.
Subtag "DATE"
Date of recording.
Subtag "DISCNUMBER"
Discnumber (only valid if ALBUM is given).
Subtag "TRACKNUMBER"
Tracknumber (only valid if ALBUM is given).
Subtag "LOCATION"
Location of recording.
Subtag "LABEL"
Label.
Subtag "PUBLISHER"
Publisher.
Subtag "PRODUCER"
Producer.
Subtag "ARRANGER"
Arranger.
..
Supertag "COMMENT":
Subtag "DESCRIPTION"
Short description (no latin please).
Subtag "URI"
An associated URI (or URL).
..
..
This is by no means the final version (i wouldn't have any say in that
anyway, since i'm just yet another list-subscriber =) , but it IS a
proposal.
So, please comment.
--
Trick
__________________________________________
Linux User #229006 * http://counter.li.org
"There is no magic." - Nakor, magic user.
--- >8 ----
List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'vorbis-request@xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is
needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:20:07AM +0100, Trick <gerry@c64.org> wrote:
| 1. Make it simple.
| 2. Make it (optionally!) detailed.
[...]
| Subtags are for detailed comments, and has the form:
| ARTIST=COMPOSER=Xz
| ARTIST=PERFORMER=Yz
How about
ARTIST/COMPOSER=Xz
There's just something about the two "=" that bugs me (and we can
feed
Jonathan's UNIX preferences this way too:-).
| Supertag "ORIGIN":
| Subtag "ALBUM"
| Album this work came from, if any.
| Subtag "MEDIA"
| Media.
[...]
Nice! Solves the SOURCEMEDI* problem and introduces a very simple hierachy
without reaching for XML.
| This is by no means the final version (i wouldn't have any say in that
| anyway, since i'm just yet another list-subscriber =) , but it IS a
proposal.
| So, please comment.
I like it.
--
Cameron Simpson, DoD#743 cs@zip.com.au http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/
Ed Campbell's <ed@Tekelex.Com> pointers for long trips:
4. Inspect your bike carefully, check the oil, and lube the chain
every time you stop.
--- >8 ----
List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'vorbis-request@xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is
needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
Trick wrote:> I mentioned sub-tagging in an earlier post. Here's a more in-depth mail on > what i thought of. > > One of the debates going on here are whether ARTIST is worthy of life. > Another is whether the average user will bother filling in the detailed info > Jonathan wants. Of course, all tags are optional, but nevertheless we should > have a tagging-system that pleases _the_users_, that is, everybody: > > 1. Make it simple. > 2. Make it (optionally!) detailed. > > Based on this i propose the following tagging and sub-tagging system, which > is easy, simple, flexible, detailed for those who want it. > > Tags are for simple comments, and has the form: > TITLE=Title > > Subtags are for detailed comments, and has the form: > ARTIST=COMPOSER=Xz > ARTIST=PERFORMER=YzInstant reaction: Interesting idea. Keep it simple for those who want it simple, but allow complexity for those that want it. I don't like using = both for separating the names from the value, and the tag name from the subtag name. Seems like it could be ambiguous, especially in the case of an artist with an = in its name (I'm sure some pop group has done it). Imagine a band called A=A. Here's the obvious form of their simple ARTIST tag: ARTIST=A=A Is that a subtag, or not? So I suggest using a comma to separate tags from subtags: ARTIST,COMPOSER=Beethoven ARTIST,PERFOMER,PIANO=Daniel Barenboim So the rule now is that everything to the left of the first = is tag names, with commas separating levels of tags. Any subsequent commas or =s are part of the tag's value. Note that I have extended the subtagging to a third level here (why not?). I still don't think very many people will bother with all this arcane stuff, so it really isn't worth the bother of implementing, but your system at least allows the ordinary user to enter simple tags without worrying about the details, or the difference between a PERFORMER and an ENSEMBLE. I also like a suggestion someone else made, that tag names should be cased for normal printing so that the software displaying the tags doesn't need to worry about it. So it really should be Artist,Composer=Beethoven Artist,Performer,Piano=Daniel Barenboim This will tend to display better.> Now, on to the proposed tags: > > Supertag "ARTIST": > Subtag "COMPOSER" > The composer of the work. > Subtag "LYRICIST" > The one who wrote the lyrics. > Subtag "PERFORMER" > The one performing the work. > Subtag "ENSEMBLE" > The group performing. > Subtag "CONDUCTOR" > Conductor, if any. > Subtag "AUTHOR" > The original author. > > Supertag "WORK": > Subtag "TITLE" > The title of the work. > Subtag "VERSION" > The version (eg live) > Subtag "PART" > Part of the work. > Subtag "OPUS" > Opus. > Subtag "TYPE" > Type. > Subtag "GENRE" > Genre. > Subtag "COPYRIGHT" > Copyright. > ..Actually, there may be two copyrights involved. The one you're putting under "WORK" would presumably be the composer's (or sheet music publisher's) copyright. But there is also a copyright in the sound recording, which is usually owned by the record company. So there should be a COPYRIGHT subtag under ORIGIN as well.> Supertag "ORIGIN": > Subtag "ALBUM" > Album this work came from, if any. > Subtag "MEDIA" > Media. > Subtag "DATE" > Date of recording.Let's have a date of release, too; both original date and re-release date. This will help to distinguish ugly 1980s CDs from nice remastered 1990s/2000s CDs. So, RECORDINGDATE, RELEASEDATE, MASTERINGDATE. These names are rather long, unfortunately, but I don't think they will be clear if they're much shorter. The fact that you've placed MEDIA under ORIGIN helps to clarify its intended usage.> This is by no means the final version (i wouldn't have any say in that > anyway, since i'm just yet another list-subscriber =)Funny, I thought Jonathan was just another subscriber, too, but he seems to think he has some authority.> but it IS a proposal. > So, please comment.I think just about any attempt to go much beyond the tags of ID3 is going to have a very small userbase; as a quick sampling of Napster/Gnutella/etc. shows, most MP3 users don't even use ID3 effectively. So I have serious doubts about the value of any attempt to define an elaborate standard for tagging. However, I like your system better than I like Jonathan's, because you allow the average user to do things simply while still allowing considerable flexibility for the more sophisticated users. Craig <p>--- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:20:07AM +0100, Trick wrote:> I mentioned sub-tagging in an earlier post. Here's a more in-depth mail on > what i thought of.OK, time to wade in... First off, all the proposals thus far are well meaning, but most of them are missing the mark. Aside from whether or not subtagging is a good idea or not (IMHBCO, it's not a good idea), it cannot be implemented. The format is frozen at 1.0, and this cannot be done within the 1.0 spec. Sorry folks, we've been in format feature freeze since June, and this idea cannot be implemented without breaking decoders that have already been guaranteed to work forever. Monty --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
Having now been able to read your spec I have two thoughts. Please DO NOT get rid of the artist tag. You say "it should be an extreme nuicance(sp?) or annoyance to use it". I think that use of it could be discouraged, but that it must remain, just to make things easy. Think of "Artist" as representing all the people behind a particular recording. With a CD Name in the CD/album tag, one can find all this information, especially if one does have the original CD. I think the standard should be backward compatible in this respect, and allow people to continue tagging in the "quasi-standard" artist/title way they already have. Secondly, Your shell script is a great example of how your system can work. The only thing is, that this sort of thing can work with everything stuffed in the track tag like "blah composed by XXXX written by XXXX". Stuffing that much into the track is um, not so nice/elegant. Personally I generally put remixs into the track "Body Moving (Funker Vogt Mix)" but only because the remix is a different track, a new work in it's own right. I include details of the track "Live from Big Day Out '01, Boiler Room stage" in the comments...... I think I can use this new standard. I'll probably enjoy using it, but it must be backward compatible to Artist/Title/Album/year/comment tagging. This type of tagging has to exist under the standard, mainly because I have spent a lot of time configuring my ripping and tagging programs to name my files elegantly, and tag them in the current "framework". Mark Hetherington id3 was quickly thrown together for POP songs. It's limitations don't mean the entire concept was flawed. I posted a challenge to the list in my last email. I'm waiting for someone to meet it. Jonathan On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 02:57:17PM +0100, Patrick Mauritz wrote:>> No, no. This is uselessly complcated. What's wrong with having a number of >> standard optional specific tags, and using only those needed?>quite simple - you can't specify all the tags one may use sometimes. >id3 showed it clearly: a set of optional tags was designed and it is not >good enough for certain cases...<p>--- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
I understand that I can have an artist tag and it will be compliant, just I dislike that you say "it should be an extreme nuisance", I'd prefer you worded your proposal like "The artist tag should be avoided, users are encouraged to use Performer". Hmmm, I'm going to have to look at my Grip configuration and attempt to get it to start shuffling freedb info into "performer" and "Artist". I don't think I'll abandon the artist tag, i figure having the info duplicated in two tags should make sure players display it as they have been, and still make things "nicer" for people who love their tags :-) My main problem with using an Ensemble tag is that it would be hard to configure my ripping software to use Ensemble where appropriate without me mucking around every time I rip a cd.... Plus I'm not sure I could make the distinction myself. Maybe read the standard a bit closely. If it wasn't clear, I'll try to correct my omission. You can have an artist tag in your ogg file, and it will still be compliant. Ogg players can display the artist tag if it exists, and still be compliant. The nuisance of using the artist tag will only come when you *create* the ogg file. This encourages use of the standard, while not breaking backward compatibility for old oggs. If you must insert an artist tag when you create new ogg files, at least duplicate the information in a performer or ensemble tag. Anyone who is confused by the distinction between performer and ensemble can just use performer. ensemble shall remain for those of us who feel more comfortable when we can make those distinctions. Backward compatibility with mp3 and id3 is clearly stated to not be a goal of the standard, but other than the artist tag I think it meets your wish for something that uses "Artist/Title/Album/year/comment" tags. Don't forget to substitute DATE for YEAR. How hard would it be to make a simple shell script that would go through and retag your whole collection? I could do it in 3 minutes. Jonathan On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 10:25:15AM +1100, MARK JAMES HETHERINGTON wrote:>Please DO NOT get rid of the artist tag. You say "it should be an >extreme nuicance(sp?) or annoyance to use it". I think that use of it >could be discouraged, but that it must remain, just to make things easy. >Think of "Artist" as representing all the people behind a particular >recording. With a CD Name in the CD/album tag, one can find all this >information, especially if one does have the original CD. > >I think the standard should be backward compatible in this respect, and >allow people to continue tagging in the "quasi-standard" artist/title >way they already have. > >Secondly, Your shell script is a great example of how your system can >work. The only thing is, that this sort of thing can work with >everything stuffed in the track tag like "blah composed by XXXX written >by XXXX". Stuffing that much into the track is um, not so nice/elegant. > Personally I generally put remixs into the track "Body Moving (Funker >Vogt Mix)" but only because the remix is a different track, a new work >in it's own right. I include details of the track "Live from Big Day Out >'01, Boiler Room stage" in the comments...... > >I think I can use this new standard. I'll probably enjoy using it, but >it must be backward compatible to Artist/Title/Album/year/comment >tagging. This type of tagging has to exist under the standard, mainly >because I have spent a lot of time configuring my ripping and tagging >programs to name my files elegantly, and tag them in the current >"framework".<p>--- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.