[ogg-dev] The use for an XML based metadata format

[Daniel Aleksandersen]

On Tuesday 18. September 2007 14:32:45 Ian Malone wrote:
> On 11/09/2007, Ian Malone <ibmalone at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/09/2007, Daniel Aleksandersen <aleksandersen+xiphlists at 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
> > > > you tremendous freedom too. Atom on the other hand has a very
> > > > specific target for the things they describe (but they did take a
> > > > very pragmatic approach to their problem from what I understand,
> > > > which means they're probably good people to be talking to).
> > >
> > > The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative are great for describing written
> > > resources such as books, web pages, and indeed it would have worked
> > > in the case of Atom as well. However it is no good when it comes to
> > > describing audio and videos. Mostly because you have no method of
> > > describing what 'role' people and organisations had in the
> > > production. Which is precisely why I added the poorly defined role
> > > attribute to the person and organisation elements.
> >
> > DC has provision for qualifiers, there is a proposed 'agent-role'
> > <http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2002/05/Agent-roles.html>
> > which, last time I looked, used the MARC relator list:
> > <http://www.loc.gov/marc/sourcecode/relator/relatorlist.html>
> >
> >
> >
> > But it is there.  However, no such scheme can reasonably provide
> > support for one-of-roles such as 'Othello', this suggests that beyond
> > simple role-refinement there are a number of mini-metadata specs
> > required here.
>
> Okay, I'm not sure if this is a revelatory inspiration or a crazy idea,
> but this morning it occurred to me that what might work is three
> degrees of refinement for a role:
>
> 1. General.  This would be like the MARC relator list.  If someone
>    plays guitar it will say musician.  Doesn't seem satisfactory?
>    Go to 2.  This would take us well beyond music alone and I
>    think that generality is a good thing, rather than specifying a
>    slightly pat and contrived list; 'guitar', 'vocals', 'drums',
> 'theremin', 'bowed guitar'
> 2. Refined.  Where available pick from a given list of possibilities.
>    This is where you'd put type of musical instrument for example.
>    Options such as 'other instrument' or omitting altogether would
>    be perfectly valid.
> 3. Free form refinement.  E.g the 'bowed guitar' from above refining
>    'guitar'.  The more refined you get the less machine readable it
>    becomes, but that's okay because you can machine on the above
>    refinements and still display the free-form.  Would also specify
>    characters.  May use things such as URIs where defined
>    categories exist; for example if someone produced a URN scheme
>    for all characters in Shakespeare's works.
>
> Any thoughts or criticisms on this?  RDF allows us to specify
> the same endpoint for multiple relationships, or we could handle
> roles in a more complex way than simple relationships, either
> way the above could be made to work.

I do not know the English word for this, but I will try to explain: Would it 
not be satisfactory to give the category of instrument? I mean: Surely the 
English language does provide names for various instrument categories.

As everyone seams so keen to keep Vorbis comments; how could this be applied 
using Vorbis comments?
-- 
Daniel Aleksandersen