Confusion between xmpDM fields and dc fields.
greetings,
have not read specification while, , seems there have been 2 new releases since time, confused newly added dynamic management section schema, importantly following
fields confuse me:
xmpdm:artist
xmpdm:album
xmpdm:genre
i don't understand why these specific fields exist, because not equivalent dublincore schema, no??
more
xmpdm:artist -> dc:creator (ok, admit bit far-fetched but..)
xmpdm:album -> dc:source (according iso 15836, resource derived from, album name should there, no?)
xmpdm:genre -> dc:type (according iso 15836, genre of resource).
so rule, should update xmp metadata in both dc , xmpdm schema if describe audio resource?
thanks , pointers on topic!
carl eric codere
have not read specification while, , seems there have been 2 new releases since time, confused newly added dynamic management section schema, importantly following
fields confuse me:
xmpdm:artist
xmpdm:album
xmpdm:genre
i don't understand why these specific fields exist, because not equivalent dublincore schema, no??
more
xmpdm:artist -> dc:creator (ok, admit bit far-fetched but..)
xmpdm:album -> dc:source (according iso 15836, resource derived from, album name should there, no?)
xmpdm:genre -> dc:type (according iso 15836, genre of resource).
so rule, should update xmp metadata in both dc , xmpdm schema if describe audio resource?
thanks , pointers on topic!
carl eric codere
i don't think there's requirement implementing new schema needs alias existing fields. that's useful in custom, narrowly focused schema it's confusing. private schemas consistently named , self contained. i'm guessing that's case here adobe video tool engineers: "this schema specifies properties used adobe dymanic media group."
More discussions in XMP SDK
adobe
Comments
Post a Comment