admin – 2010 August 03
Geoffrey Bilder – 2009 December 09
thammond – 2009 June 10
thammond – 2009 January 16
thammond – 2008 December 19
thammond – 2008 October 20
thammond – 2007 October 17
So, back on the old XMP tack. The simple vision from the XMP spec is that XMP packets are embedded in media files and transported along with them - and as such are relatively self-contained units, see Fig 1.
Fig. 1 - Media files with fully encapsulated descriptions.
But this is too simple. Some preliminary considerations lead us to to see why we might want to reference additional (i.e. external) sources of metadata from the original packet:
Now, assuming XMP is a good idea - and I think on balance it is (as blogged earlier), why are we not seeing any metadata published in scholarly media files? The only drawbacks that occur to me are:
Hard to write - it’s too damn difficult, no tools support, etc.
Hard to model - rigid, “simple” XMP data model, both complicates and constrains the RDF data model
thammond – 2007 September 25
Been so busy looking into the technical details of XMP that I almost forgot to check out the current landcsape. Luckily I chanced on these articles by Ron Roszkiewicz for The Seybold Report (and apologies for lifting the title of this post from his last). The articles about XMP are well worth reading and chart the painful progress made to date:
The Brief Tortured Life of XMP (July ’05)
Thought Leaders Hammer out Metadata Standard (April ’07)
Metadata Persistence and “Save for Web…” (July ’07)
2019 February 10
2019 February 07
2019 February 05