On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Jon Phillips wrote:
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] metadata: general vs. specific in SVG
On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 00:29 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:
On 8/26/06, Jon Phillips <jon@...235...> wrote:
So, one of the things I've wanted to work on is more specific metadata usage per-object which we could hav UI for in Inkscape and for use in Open Clip Art Library.
Thus, what I think would be a good approach is to generalize Kees' document metadata dialog into a panel which can be re-used and then either we add an object metadata dialog (using Jon's panel work), or just attach this functionality to the object properties dialog.
I would be much more comfortable with a seperate "Document Properites"/Metadata dialog and another dialog for Object properties metadata.
I'm saying the same thing but more saying the code should be generalized for use in both places but for diff. instances.
Okay that is good, I was worried someone might try to apply the same frontend to both which would have been horribly clunky.
The document metadata descibes things like Title, Author, Subject, etc. Object properties are more likely to be different, a collection of name & value pairs roughly resembling the following:
<metadata name="vehicle" value="truck" /> <metadata name="animal" value="duck" /> <metadata name="tag" value="mountain" />
There is already a standard for this as I described before. We should be consistent to use the standard dublin core. Although, I see the value in what you are suggesting...but, we should stick to our guns on how we use the global international standard.
I'm not hung up on the markup it is more a case of providing a few good defaults and extensibility. People will want all kinds of tags and it makes sense to design with the necessary flexibility in mind or the user interface will quickly become bloated. I expect what I've suggested can be achieved using RDF or better yet the SVG metadata tag.
Where users would be able to define their own endless list of name value pairs or tags to put on an object.
Document properites are more likely to be along the lines of Dublin Core. Sure you might also want to include a Custom/Advanced tab on the Document Propties dialog allowing you to add your own additional tags but generalising the Document properties dialog would make it less useful. By all means try to find a way to share common elements and interaction models but try to keep the two different tasks seperate.
Look at Visio if you can. What I am describing should roughly resemble what Microsoft Office does. It is pretty close to how OpenOffice does things too (see File, Properties, User Defined. Also see Modify, Name Object).
Can you provide screenshots? I dont' have a windoze box.
I have attached a screenshot of the Document Properties dialog in Powerpoint showing the Custom tab (the Summary tab shows the standard Title, Subject, Author, Keywords, etc).
You can also view the powerpoint screenshot here http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~horkana/inkscape/powerpoint/powerpoint-metadata.png
The screenshot is from Powerpoint 2000 but Visio 2000 was along the same lines. The OpenOffice.org metadata dialog isn't wildy different either but the object specific metadata dailog is very limited in Openoffice whereas I would expect Inkscape Object properties to end up with something pretty close (in functionality) to the aformentioned Custom tab.
Kees what do you think? Others, what do you think?
So definately yes to per object metadata but please make sure you have a good idea of other approaches before you try to come up with a whole new one.
Maybe you could help outline this with screenshots to show what you mean :) I currently don't have time to do this...
Hopefully that attachment will get through and give you the gist.
Since you mentioned Pippin, a gimp developer you may want to try and think of a design which could be reused verbatim for their document properties and layer properties, which in this case should be analagous to the inkscape document properties and object (or group) properties.
Hmmm...the thing is, dublin core is standardized...also, the SVG specs both support this: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-SVG12-20041027/nonvisual.html#external-metadata
I think we should go this route and go to greater efforts to not include all the fields if they are empty. We could also add your extensible suggestion but do it through the global standard, dublin core.
Again it is the idea not the implementation I'm worried about. It sounds like we agree but are just describing things from slightly different angles.
JonCruz and Kess, what do you all think? I think it will be great to get this done because we are innovating on the metadata, its allowing me to push this with Creative Commons, and also push it with W3C and others.
It is great to see you getting ahead and not just follow standards but helping to set them. Great work.
Sincerely
Alan Horkan
Inkscape http://inkscape.org Abiword http://www.abisource.com Open Clip Art http://OpenClipArt.org
Alan's Diary http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/
