There's also http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/commons/ which does TIFF and PNG parsing among other things.
I'll have to investigate all of those after the 1.0 release. Regards Damjan On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Ray Gauss II <ray.ga...@alfresco.com> wrote: > In case you're not aware, much has been done around EXIF, IPTC, and XMP in > Apache Tika which uses the Drew Noakes library [1] for some of its work and > there's a parser which wraps ExifTool [2]. > > Perhaps there's some opportunity to combine efforts? > > Regards, > > Ray > > [1] http://www.drewnoakes.com/code/exif/ > [2] https://github.com/Alfresco/tika-exiftool > > > On Jul 8, 2012, at 8:59 PM, Farrukh Najmi wrote: > >> >> 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 >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
