Metadata Working Group

[jch2103]

There have been some questions about the status/future of the Metadata Working Group. Phil got a response from them: http://u88.n24.queensu.ca/exiftool/forum/index.php/topic,10030.0.html

Hopefully a good sign.

[Mario]

That's good news. I also wondered about that, but did not have the time to investigate.

While the  MWG is not perfect, its the best we ever had when it comes to metadata standardization. Which is a big advantage to all users.
If only the MWG members would stick to their own standards (this means You, Adobe and Microsoft).

Still, I'm happy with metadata created by MWG rules. Because I know it will work with the largest set of applications and audiences.
And I'm sometimes just speechless at the mess cameras and other apps and devices create. Because all that mess finally boils up in IMatch and I'm expected to have solutions...

[lbo]

If only the MWG members would stick to their own standards (this means You, Adobe and Microsoft).

(kidding) Don't say that too loud! In the end they implement the MWG hierarchical keywords. (/kidding)

Oliver

[Mario]

(kidding) Don't say that too loud! In the end they implement the MWG hierarchical keywords. (/kidding)
Oliver

The MWG spec hierarchical keywords are so bloated, they would not work with many of the keyword hierarchies IMatch users manage.
Many IMatch users have between 1000 and 5000 hierarchical keywords. But a large share has between 10,000 and 50,000 keywords. 100,000 to 200,000 keywords are the peak in the scientific / industrial user base (and stretch IMatch quite a lot).

I just had to tell a new user than IMatch cannot handle his 600,000 keywords. Not without substantial changes in the IMatch UI (e.g. not using Windows tree controls anymore). Doing all that in the XMP spec hierarchical keyword structure would be possible (in some fashion) but could become a nightmare.
This would at least blow up the XMP record massively, not speaking about the additional complexity of managing and synchronizing up to 4 (!) separate sets of keywords in a file (legacy IPTC, XMP keywords, XMP lr hierarchical keywords, XMP hierarchical keywords). And  hoping that all applications in the workflow play along, are all current etc...

If this becomes more standard or required, I will again look at this. ExifTool can do it but I'd rather not to. Users would see no benefit from it or even more problems when modifying metadata in multiple applications. And I have wasted so many months of my lifetime dealing with metadata issues, I'm sick to the back teeth with all that mess.
In the time I waste spend solving yet another users unique special metadata issues, I could do so much more useful work for the whole user base and the development of IMatch and IMatch Anywhere^TM

[lbo]

(kidding) Don't say that too loud! In the end they implement the MWG hierarchical keywords. (/kidding)
Oliver

The MWG spec hierarchical keywords are so bloated,

that's what I meant.

Oliver