[Digikam-users] digikam's "Settings, Configure, Identity" IPTC fields

[Arnd Baecker]

Hi Elle,

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, elle stone wrote:

> Arnd Baecker wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, elle stone wrote:
> >
> >> elle stone wrote:
> >>
> >> > 2a. "Creator" and "Author" are "shared fields", meaning whatever is
> >> > entered into the one appears in the other, in the upcoming/developing
> >> > (Adobe-led) XMP standards.  Likewise "Author Title" and "Creator's Job
> >> > Title" are shared (these "shared fields" are a "backwards
> >> compatibility"
> >> > thing as XMP evolves to include more than IPTC and EXIF).  So if you
> >> work
> >> > for an organization, your job title goes here.  If you work for
> >> yourself
> >> > or take pictures as a passion rather than as a profession, I suppose
> >> > "Photographer" or "Starving Artist" might go here.
> >>
> >> In Digikam under the right sidebar "Metadata - IPTC" the terminology is
> >> "By-line" and "By-line Title", which is another "shared field" right
> >> along
> >> with "Creator" and "Author".  In Digikam, under "Settings, Configure
> >> digikam, Identity, Photographer Information" the terminology is "Author"
> >> and
> >> "Author Title".  What you enter under "Author" shows up under "By-line",
> >> which could be confusing, I suppose.
> >>
> >> Exiftool, which seems to be "the" way to access metadata if you find your
> >> metatdata "wants and needs" exceed your gui, uses "By-line" and "By-line
> >> Title" to access these two fields.  "By-line" seems to be the older
> >> terminology, harking back to the days of newspaper photos being sent over
> >> the wires.

Actually, what about exiv2 in this context?

> > Elle, what should be done with this text?
> > Do you suggest to add it to the documentation?

> Arnd - still being a newbie here, I don't know where "documentation" is or
> how to access it to change it.

Well, that's no problem - suggestions for documentation
are always welcome, and (as seen with your previous one)
Gerhard is blazingly fast at adding them.
So this mailing list (or digikam-devel) is perfectly suited for this
(Of course, if you contribute more, svn write access could/should
be arranged for you...).

> I do think that terminological consistency
> within digikam is less confusing to the end-user.  I also think that an
> explanation as to why there are so many terms that sound like and sometimes
> are the same thing is also a good thing.  I also ran across the "terms of
> usage" for using official IPTC publications (from which I was quoting) - and
> I'm not sure how these terms of usage affect what is put into digikam
> documentation (the "terms" say something like "freely use and make sure a
> copy of the terms of usage is included", but how these "terms" affect quotes
> which would probably fall under the rubric of "fair usage" is something I'm
> not sure about - certainly I never included whole pages of "terms" when
> footnoting research papers in college) .
>
> So I am delighted to rewrite anything that should be rewritten, and submit
> it to the proper parties, but guidance/direction as to process/procedure
> would be needed.

See above. I think you did everything perfectly ...

> One of my old bosses once said to me - don't bring up a
> problem without offering a solution

... only that for your suggestion, it was not clear
to me which "problem" it should address ;-).
I.e. should this text be added, and if yes to
which section in the  documentation etc.?

> - or in this case, additional
> information without including it as needed - but as I said, the "how", the
> process, is something I don't know how to do.  If someone sent me text, I
> would send it back modified.  If that is how it is done.

I will leave it to Gerhard, if the "procedure" should
be different from just mailing suggestions here - he is the
digikam documentation guru...

Best, Arnd