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

[Ian Malone]

On 18/09/2007, Daniel Aleksandersen <aleksandersen+xiphlists at runbox.com> wrote:
> 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:

> > > >
> > > > 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>

> >
> > 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.

> > 2. Refined.  Where available pick from a given list of possibilities.
> >    This is where you'd put type of musical instrument for example.

> > 3. Free form refinement.  E.g the 'bowed guitar' from above refining
> >    'guitar'.

> >    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.
>

Possibly (we refer to families: woodwind, brass &c.), this might
make sense to go into level 2 and then level 3 would describe
the exact instrument if needed.  I'm less concerned about the
detail at this point than the overall structure (general, widely
compatible refinement; more specific slightly bespoke;
specialized machine-unfriendly)

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

With a hack as always (I'm not saying they're ideal, simply
that I think for various reasons XML metadata will supplement
rather than *replace* them). eg.
MUSICIAN=(vocal,Càlaf)Pavarotti, Luciano[1][2]

[1] May he rest in peace.
[2] I haven't referred to the vorbiscomment wiki page to write
    this so it probably wont quite follow whatever recommendations
    there are for attribution.

-- 
imalone