Talk:Metadata: Difference between revisions
Martin.leese (talk | contribs) m (MDMF replacing Vorbiscomments) |
Martin.leese (talk | contribs) (→MDMF replacing Vorbiscomments: Clarified) |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
:This seems unlikely, not least because Vorbis comments are much simpler to implement and interpret. Current consensus is that this will be supplementary or take precedence.--[[User:Imalone|Imalone]] 06:21, 17 September 2007 (PDT) | :This seems unlikely, not least because Vorbis comments are much simpler to implement and interpret. Current consensus is that this will be supplementary or take precedence.--[[User:Imalone|Imalone]] 06:21, 17 September 2007 (PDT) | ||
::As I understand it, the purpose of MDMF is to replace Vorbiscomments for the use of ''structured'' metadata, allowing Vorbiscomments to revert to its orginally intended use of "short, text comments...much like someone jotting a quick note on the bottom of a CDR." I will modify the article to say this. [[User:Martin.leese|Martin Leese]] 12:01, 18 September 2007 (PDT) | ::As I understand it, the purpose of MDMF is to replace Vorbiscomments for the use of ''structured'' metadata, allowing Vorbiscomments to revert to its orginally intended use of "short, text comments ... much like someone jotting a quick note on the bottom of a CDR." I will modify the article to say this. The Vorbis docs even state "arbitrary metadata belongs in a separate logical bitstream (usually an XML stream type) that provides greater structure and machine parseability". [[User:Martin.leese|Martin Leese]] 12:01, 18 September 2007 (PDT) | ||
Revision as of 11:12, 18 September 2007
IEEE Learning Object Metadata
The proposed solution is RDF + Dublin Core. Has anybody looked into supporting IEEE LOM, the Learning Object Metadata standard that I believe can incorporate Dublin Core? This is being adopted by key players in the e-learning world (IMS Global Learning, and SCORM), and would be valuable for the applications I am interested in.
- Fred Kintanar
- Cebu City, Philippines
Having just looked at the IEEE LOM page, I see they have XML and RDF bindings defined. The current view seems to be that you package a RDF or RDF/XML description of the content into the Ogg stream, with Dublin Core being a minimum feature set (Dublin Core certainly doesn't provide everything one might want). Handlers would most likely ignore or "dumb-down" relations they don't understand. In that case this would certainly work, but at the moment there is no clear plan (details like references between and into logical streams haven't really been considered as far as I can tell).
What you want to do may already be possible with Annodex; try their mailing lists, or the Ogg-dev mailing list.
- Imalone 05:48, 30 January 2006 (PST)
MDMF replacing Vorbiscomments
The article read:
"The format [MDMF] will possibly replace Vorbis comments altogether."
To which Imalone responded:
- This seems unlikely, not least because Vorbis comments are much simpler to implement and interpret. Current consensus is that this will be supplementary or take precedence.--Imalone 06:21, 17 September 2007 (PDT)
- As I understand it, the purpose of MDMF is to replace Vorbiscomments for the use of structured metadata, allowing Vorbiscomments to revert to its orginally intended use of "short, text comments ... much like someone jotting a quick note on the bottom of a CDR." I will modify the article to say this. The Vorbis docs even state "arbitrary metadata belongs in a separate logical bitstream (usually an XML stream type) that provides greater structure and machine parseability". Martin Leese 12:01, 18 September 2007 (PDT)