find vendor-neutral tag for storing keywords in XMP
Submitted by Adam Dingle
Link to original bug (#717999)
Description
---- Reported by adam@yorba.org 2011-08-29 07:08:00 -0700 ----
Original Redmine bug id: 4050
Original URL: http://redmine.yorba.org/issues/4050
Searchable id: yorba-bug-4050
Original author: Adam Dingle
Original description:
When Shotwell exports a photo with hierarchical keywords, it currently saves the keyword information to the following tags in XMP:
Xmp.digiKam.TagsList
Xmp.MicrosoftPhoto.LastKeywordXMP
We should find (or invent) a XMP tag name that mentions no particular program or vendor. Lucas, I know you emailed the digiKam folks about this - did you ever hear anything back?
Related issues: related to gexiv2 - Feature #3950 (closed): Expose Adobe Lightroom hierarchical subject tags (Moved)
- related to shotwell - Feature #6719: Write HTags to Xmp.lr.hierarchicalSubject (Open)
---- Additional Comments From shotwell-maint@gnome.bugs 2013-05-16 14:44:00 -0700 ----
History
Comment 1
Updated by Lucas Beeler about 2 years ago
Hey Adam,
I did hear back from Gilles (the digiKam maintainer). Insofar as I could determine, there is no "standard" XMP tag for hierarchical keyword data, whereby "standard" I mean it's part of the Dublin Core or some other specification produced by a vendor-neutral committee. I proposed to Gilles that we create a new field specification for hierarchical tag information and publish it to freedesktop.org. Gilles replied that hierarchical keyword handling was already problematic enough and that they very much wanted to keep it within the digiKam namespace.
We could publish our own standard; others (especially in the open source world) might even follow.
It's worth noting, however, that there is a de facto standard: the Adobe Lightroom xmp.lr.hierarchicalSubject field. Actually, since Adobe is the steward of the XMP spec, it might not even be de facto. Almost all photos that I've found in the wild that have any hierarchical subject information associated with them have this field populated. We read from this field today. Unfortunately, we can't write to it without hacking around an exiv2 problem in GExiv2. The ticket for that is here: #3950 (closed)
Comment 2
Updated by Piergiorgio Traversin about 2 years ago
Lucas Beeler wrote:
bq.
It's worth noting, however, that there is a de facto standard: the Adobe Lightroom xmp.lr.hierarchicalSubject field. Actually, since Adobe is the steward of the XMP spec, it might not even be de facto. Almost all photos that I've found in the wild that have any hierarchical subject information associated with them have this field populated. We read from this field today. Unfortunately, we can't write to it without hacking around an exiv2 problem in GExiv2. The ticket for that is here: #3950 (closed)
I see in the mwg guidelines (page 62) that they suggest to use the prefix mwg- kw for keyword, and specifically 'mwg-kw:Hierarchy' for hierarchical keywords. Am I missing something or this should be the way to go? http://www.metadataworkinggroup.org/specs/
On a side note, I'd like to have most of the equivalent fields filled up when tagging, for compatibility purposes.
-pt
Comment 3
Updated by Lucas Beeler about 2 years ago
On a side note, I'd like to have most of the equivalent fields filled up when tagging, for compatibility purposes.
Agreed. We especially need to write to Xmp.lr.hierarchicalSubject because it does appear to be the de facto standard in place now.
Comment 4
Updated by Lucas Beeler about 2 years ago
- Priority changed from Normal to High
- Target version set to 0.12
We should check to see if there are any emerging standards about this. The Metadata Working Group RFCs seem promising.
Comment 5
Updated by Adam Dingle almost 2 years ago
-
Target version deleted (
<strike>
_0.12_</strike>
)
Comment 6
Updated by Adam Dingle over 1 year ago
- Description updated (diff)
- Target version set to 0.13
I think we should continue this dicussion in the 0.13 timeframe.
Comment 7
Updated by Adam Dingle over 1 year ago
-
Target version deleted (
<strike>
_0.13_</strike>
)
Comment 8
Updated by Jim Nelson 11 months ago
- Target version set to 0.14.0
Comment 9
Updated by Jim Nelson 11 months ago
- Category set to tags
Comment 10
Updated by Jim Nelson 11 months ago
- Target version changed from 0.14.0 to 0.15.0
Comment 11
Updated by Jim Nelson 8 months ago
- Target version changed from 0.15.0 to 0.16.0
Comment 12
Updated by Jim Nelson 6 months ago
-
Target version deleted (
<strike>
_0.16.0_</strike>
)
--- Bug imported by chaz@yorba.org 2013-11-25 21:54 UTC ---
This bug was previously known as bug 4050 at http://redmine.yorba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4050
Unknown version " in product shotwell. Setting version to "!unspecified". Unknown milestone "unknown in product shotwell. Setting to default milestone for this product, "---". Setting qa contact to the default for this product. This bug either had no qa contact or an invalid one. Resolution set on an open status. Dropping resolution