There are two specs:
1. IPTC Standard Photo Metadata 2008 IPTC Core Specification Version 1.1
IPTC Extension Specification Version 1.0
Document Revision 2
<http://www.iptc.org/std/photometadata/2008/specification/IPTC-PhotoMetadata-2008.pdf>
(IPTC-PhotoMetadata-2008 spec)
2. IPTC - NAA Information Interchange Model Version 4
<http://www.iptc.org/std/IIM/4.1/specification/IIMV4.1.pdf> (IIM spec)
The IPTC-PhotoMetadata-2008 spec suprecedes the IIM spec from what I
have read. We should therefor be implementing the
IPTC-PhotoMetadata-2008 (the spec) and not the IIM spec.
The TODO comment is about the properties that are in IIM spec but not in
IPTC-PhotoMetadata-2008. I have chosen to leave them there for now. All
the IptcTypes.name field values are aligned with the XMP property id
values from the spec. That was the main change in the patch. I think we
should change IptcTypes.name field to IptcTypes.propertyId field and
perhaps later add a name field that aligns with the Name field values
from the spec. BTW, I would be happy to have a skype (skype id:
farrukh_najmi) call to discuss this if you would like.
On 07/08/2012 11:34 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
You ask "TODO: What to do about properties not seen in
IPTC-PhotoMetadata-2008 (e.g. "Record Version"))"
Look at http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/TagNames/IPTC.html
Scroll down to "IPTC ApplicationRecord Tags"
Those names seem to resemble what is in
http://www.iptc.org/std/IIM/4.1/specification/IIMV4.1.pdf page 24
onwards.
The names in your patch differ from that list.
?
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Farrukh Najmi
<farr...@wellfleetsoftware.com> wrote:
Oops. Here is the correct file this time.
On 07/07/2012 01:39 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
Hi Farrukh
Your patch is just an empty file.
Regards
Damjan
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Farrukh Najmi
<farr...@wellfleetsoftware.com> wrote:
Hi Damjan,
Attached is the patch for implementing the proposed change outlined in
bullets below.
Please review and then commit if satisfied or discuss further. Thanks.
On 07/06/2012 02:29 PM, Farrukh Najmi wrote:
An example of a metadata property that has no IIM mapping defined is
Name:
Scene Code, XMP property id: Scene (page 15 of 55 in spec)
On 07/06/2012 02:25 PM, Farrukh Najmi wrote:
Hi Damjan,
Thanks for the +1. As I started on this patch I made some observations
in
the IPTC-PhotoMetadata-2008.pdfspec:
* Not all metadata properties have an IIM mapping defined. For these
we will have to invent a type code. I propose we assign codes
starting at 10000 arbitrarily in such cases
* Every field does have an XMP property id at present. I am not sure
if there is any guarantee that future fields will have an XMP
property id. I think we should continue with XMP property id for
IptcTypes.name field but if in future versions there is no XMP
property id then the backup would be to use the Name field from
the spec
The only other alternative I can think of for IptcTypes.name field
issue
is to use the Name field from the spec which is guaranteed to be
present,
will never be translated but has the issue that it has white space in
its
content. My preference is to do what is proposed in bullets above.
Comments? Thanks.
--
Regards,
Farrukh
Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com
