[KimDaBa] new feature: IPTC keywords

[Robert L Krawitz]

   Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:23:47 +0200
   From: Dotan Cohen <dotancohen at gmail.com>

   On 10/18/05, Marco Molteni <molter at tin.it> wrote:

   > 2) keywords should stay in the image files themselves (and
   > eventually cached in a database or the equivalent index.xml
   > file), because IPTC is a standard and you get automatic
   > interoperability by storing the keywords in the files.

   I see that I got to this thread a little late. I second the opinion
   that there is a definite need for IPTC support in a product such as
   KimDaBa. My home system has a windows box KVM'ed in only because I
   need to run BrilliantPhoto in Windows. I have found no comparable
   program for Linux, with the exception of KimDaBa, which
   unfortunatly does not support the IPTC data in my photos. And I
   can't get BrilliantPhoto to run in wine, crossover, or anything
   else that I tried.

   If KimDaBa were to support the IPTC data, then I could pilot that
   winbox right out my fourth floor window! As BrilliantPhoto was an
   $18 investment, I would be willing to make a similar investment in
   KimDaBa for similar performance. Just something for an OpenSource
   programer in need of OpenSource funds to consider.

Do the keywords actually need to be kept in the master image files at
all times, or can they be added separately (during export, for
example)?

I can see good points both ways.  I think it's an excellent design
point to have Kimdaba never modify the master files (it's possible to
be comfortable that no matter what you do you won't mess up the images
-- plugins excepted), but it also makes sense to be able to store
keywords in images, particularly if there's a standard for it.

If you added keywords in only during export, you could preserve both
properties, although obviously at the cost of extra disk space.
Adding them into the master files has to be programmed very carefully;
it's very easy to lose data if you're not extremely careful.  There
are lots of corner cases (computer crashes at exactly the wrong
moment, for example), and even something as mundane as different
filesystems may be different in this regard.

BTW, I'm not convinced that a plugin is the right way to do this;
adding a keyword would change the MD5 hash, which is something the
core application needs to know about.  I'm also dubious about an
architecture that specifies that it won't change the file, but it's
perfectly OK for a plugin to; users shouldn't really have to know
about the difference between a plugin and the core application.

-- 
Robert Krawitz                                     <rlk at alum.mit.edu>

Tall Clubs International  --  http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf at uunet.uu.net
Project lead for Gimp Print   --    http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net

"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
--Eric Crampton