- I would not mind being a dues-paying member of this. Getting to influence metadata sounds sort of cool.
- also, quarterly revisions sound great, not for the people making them per se but for the people using them.
- oh my god the chart the PBCore chart this looks incredible. Hierarchy delights me in this sense.
- I think that using AudienceLevel as a metadata element is actually brilliant. It’s just a suggestion, but so is the genre of something.
- more museum work!
- I swear, every time we hear about a new subtype I go “maybe that would be fun” but every time I mean it.
- 540 categories/subcategories. I could go swimming in these left side elements. I’m all about that. Especially with art, which has so many elements to it, this makes perfect sense, although it’s not super efficient.
- the Lite version makes sense. I still want to delve into this someday, though.
- “used to describe visual works in culture” so essentially, VRA Core is for fancy objects
- the museum standard – I admit, I’m into this, because cataloging visual art is, as per previous posts about Tumblr, kind of a thing I do for fun.
- I suddenly realize that I might be perfectly comfortable working in a digital capacity for a museum. That sounds sort of fun.
Technical Metadata for Digital Still Images
Originating from the Image Metadata Workshop in 1999, held by NISO (National Image Standards Organization), CLIR (Council on Library and Information Resources), and RLG (Research Libraries Group), the Technical Metadata for Digital Still Images schema was designed “to document image provenance and history (production metadata)” and “to ensure that image data will be rendered accurately on output (to screen, print, or film),” as well as aid in preservation.
The schema was influenced by the Digital Imaging Group’s DIG35 Working Group, the ISO Technical Committee 42 – Photography, and the Adobe Developers Association, and was spearheaded by Robin Dale and Günter Waibe as early as 2003. The literature was produced around 2005-2006 and the standard was approved by NISO and ANSI in 2011.
- This schema is meant to standardize digital image recording and thus “(allow) users to develop, exchange, and interpret” digital image files. It refers to TIFF (Tagged Image File Format) usage often and interprets/meets the DIG235 metadata standard.
- The Trial Use Period for this schema helped creators to learn that it would be used primarily in XML encoding
- Standards are to be broadly applicable
- No conflict should be found between metadata specified in the standard and file header metadata
- Definitions are to be “included in the individual clauses describing each element”
Basic element names
- Definition: definition in italics
- Type: specification allowable data type(s)
- Obligation: M = mandatory, MA = mandatory if applicable, R = recommended, O = optional
- Repeatable: Y = yes, N = no
- Values (examples): When data type = “enumerated type,” the values listed are actual values
When data type = “string,” examples are provided
- Notes: a comments field
- Use: System, Manager, User
The schema can be used with many data types (containers and elements) and describes images on many, many detailed layers. More information can be found here.
- Finding aids! want to hear what Julie has to say, but I’m already on board with her thesis that they are important.
- Okay, I’m sold. EAD is non-proprietary but standardized and is incredibly useful.
- Complexity suits me just fine! I’m ready for this.
- Corresponding schemas kind of set my heart aflutter. I think that’s what I’m getting out of this.
- Embedded metadata in mp3 files! I’ve tampered with these, too, because standard metadata in mp3 files is not… always specific enough for me.
- “iTunes does not understand genre” said Liz in the chat. That is exactly what I was just talking about.
- Yes, Susie, we all remember the dial-up modem. It’s not great.
- This is one of the most useful metadata schemas in “real life” I think. Non-library-people would relate to this. That makes it particularly noteworthy.
- Also I like that there is no controlling party for this, honestly. I do. I think for something as changeable as music this makes sense.
- Because, yes, genre is subjective. My genres end up being things like Gothic Rock/Cabaret/Steampunk or something ridiculous like that. (I generally go by Wikipedia genre classifications for artists, if they’re available, and I enter them manually because it’s important to do.)