Question About Handling of IPTC Extension Location Created

Hert
Posts: 21503
Joined: 13 Sep 03 7:24

Re: Question About Handling of IPTC Extension Location Creat

Post by Hert » 26 Sep 12 8:43

Geoff, I'd like to point out that you don't have to have the Advanced editor loaded in order for the mappings to work. Once the mappings are made outside of your favorite editor (the IPTC fields) then you don't need to switch anymore.

Hert
This is a User-to-User forum which means that users post questions here for other users.
Feature requests, change suggestions, or bugs can be logged in the ticketing system

gcoupe
Posts: 603
Joined: 16 Mar 05 19:29
Location: Heelweg, The Netherlands

Re: Question About Handling of IPTC Extension Location Creat

Post by gcoupe » 26 Sep 12 9:07

Hert,

I know that, but that wasn't the point. It's that I have to switch between the Advanced and IPTC views in the Image Details panel, and I didn't realize at first that those views also controlled the views of the Mapping selection function in the Edit Details panel...

Discoverability is not always immediately apparent...
Geoff Coupe
--------------
Photo Supreme /Windows 10 Pro 64 bits + Windows Home Server 2011 = DAM

gcoupe
Posts: 603
Joined: 16 Mar 05 19:29
Location: Heelweg, The Netherlands

Re: Question About Handling of IPTC Extension Location Creat

Post by gcoupe » 28 Sep 12 8:22

Just a follow-up on this point of using auto-mapping to create IPTC Extension Location Created entries from Catalog Labels in the Places hierarchy...

It can't be used.

That's because I rely on the "process parent mapping" function to insert the mapping for higher levels in the hierarchy automatically. Now this works for the IPTC Core (legacy) Location data, because those are individual fields. I've been using this auto-mapping technique for years quite happily for the legacy fields.

However, it does NOT work for the IPTC Extension Location Created data, because this is a structured array, not a simple bunch of individual fields. And because IDI and PS must recursively step back up the Place hierarchy, what I end up with is up to five arrays, each with a single element, instead of a single array with up to five elements in it. That is, I get:

[Sublocation], [City], [Province/State], [Country Name], [World Region]

instead of:

[Sublocation, City, Province/State, Country Name, World Region]

The IPTC Extension spec states that the Location Created entry MUST be either not there at all, or be a single array with multiple elements.

So I'm going to have to look at using Detail Profiles after all. That's going to be more work to set them up initially, but hopefully it will give me the result I need, and ongoing maintenance should be minimal. Places don't tend to move around much.
Geoff Coupe
--------------
Photo Supreme /Windows 10 Pro 64 bits + Windows Home Server 2011 = DAM

Hert
Posts: 21503
Joined: 13 Sep 03 7:24

Re: Question About Handling of IPTC Extension Location Creat

Post by Hert » 28 Sep 12 10:30

Geoff,
gcoupe wrote:what I end up with is up to five arrays, each with a single element, instead of a single array with up to five elements in it. That is, I get:

[Sublocation], [City], [Province/State], [Country Name], [World Region]
The result is indeed what you get. Every mapping to the bag results in an extra element. But your explanation is not fully correct. The field itself is an array (a list). Just like keywords (dc:subject) is also a list/array. The elements within the array of dc:subject are simple text entries, so there is one array with multiple text entries.
For the location fields in ITPC extension the field is defined as an array, just like keywords. But this time an element is not a simple text entry, but each element is a structure of fields. They apparently did this to support storing multiple locations, each with it's properties like city, region, etc. So it is ONE array. Each mapping in PSU to this array will lead to its own element to be created inside the array. Since you map to a specific field in the structure, that field gets the name of the catalog label. Result: 1 array, 5 element, and for each element one of the structure fields is filled.

So you should have written:
what I end up with is up to five elements, each with a single property of the structure filled

So far for the wording.

What is beyond me is that WPG apparently restrict the use of the array to a single element. That fully defeats the purpose of the definition as an array.

Right now you can map any catalog label to this array and every mapping leads to a new element in the array. However, you would also want this, but you don't want this when handling the parent mappings. Now that is difficult because during the mapping the software doesn't know hierarchies and adding such support will drastically slow down the synchronization process for everyone, even if they don't use mappings to structured arrays. Of course I'm not too happy doing so, especially now that it performs as fast as it does.
The IPTC Extension spec states that the Location Created entry MUST be either not there at all, or be a single array with multiple elements.
As mentioned above, this then fully defeats the purpose of defining this field as an array. They should have then defined this field as a structure field and not as an array of structures. This goes way beyond me.


I also thought about this last night and I could make a change where you specify that only a single array element should be used. This you'll have to do by hand, and would again be such a feature used by one or two people.

Hert
This is a User-to-User forum which means that users post questions here for other users.
Feature requests, change suggestions, or bugs can be logged in the ticketing system

gcoupe
Posts: 603
Joined: 16 Mar 05 19:29
Location: Heelweg, The Netherlands

Re: Question About Handling of IPTC Extension Location Creat

Post by gcoupe » 28 Sep 12 11:08

Hert, thanks for the explanation, and the correcting of my words. That's helpful.

You also wrote:
What is beyond me is that WPG apparently restrict the use of the array to a single element. That fully defeats the purpose of the definition as an array.
I suspect that Microsoft has looked at the IPTC spec, where it states that Location Created is a single-element array, and thought if that's the case, then we just need to expose the first element via the geotag display, and ignore the rest, even if they exist (when strictly speaking, according to the spec, there should not even be any additional elements).

Please don't try and put in special coding to handle adding parent mappings to the same element. I'll try and accomplish the same thing by using detail profiles.

What would be helpful, though, would be a change to the Advanced Image Details panel to just show the fields of one element, and remove that button to add further elements. At the moment you're encouraging us to break the IPTC spec :D

Thanks
Geoff Coupe
--------------
Photo Supreme /Windows 10 Pro 64 bits + Windows Home Server 2011 = DAM

gcoupe
Posts: 603
Joined: 16 Mar 05 19:29
Location: Heelweg, The Netherlands

Re: Question About Handling of IPTC Extension Location Creat

Post by gcoupe » 28 Sep 12 12:14

OK, just to say that I've tried using Detail Profiles, and they work!

So, I can use automapping for the legacy IPTC Core location fields (as I always have done with IDimager), but for the IPTC Extension Location Created data, I have to define a Detail Profile for every Catalog Label in my Places hierarchy.

That's obviously a lot more work to set up the Detail Profiles up front, in comparison with just doing automapping, and it's likely to be a bit more error-prone, but at least once it's done, I shouldn't have to spend too much time maintaining it.
Geoff Coupe
--------------
Photo Supreme /Windows 10 Pro 64 bits + Windows Home Server 2011 = DAM

Hert
Posts: 21503
Joined: 13 Sep 03 7:24

Re: Question About Handling of IPTC Extension Location Creat

Post by Hert » 28 Sep 12 16:09

Geoff, the next update will now map the parent labels to the same element in the Array. This only for the LocationCreated (since it has cardinality 0.1)
This is a User-to-User forum which means that users post questions here for other users.
Feature requests, change suggestions, or bugs can be logged in the ticketing system

gcoupe
Posts: 603
Joined: 16 Mar 05 19:29
Location: Heelweg, The Netherlands

Re: Question About Handling of IPTC Extension Location Creat

Post by gcoupe » 28 Sep 12 16:20

Oh, wow! That will make things a lot simpler - I don't need to set up endless Detail Profiles, then?

Many thanks - look forward to testing it!
Geoff Coupe
--------------
Photo Supreme /Windows 10 Pro 64 bits + Windows Home Server 2011 = DAM

tstoddard
Posts: 584
Joined: 07 Sep 12 12:51

Re: Question About Handling of IPTC Extension Location Creat

Post by tstoddard » 28 Sep 12 16:28

Hert/IDimager wrote:This only for the LocationCreated (since it has cardinality 0.1)
Hert,

What is meant by cardinality 0.1? I'm not a mathematician but I looked up cardinality and see that it is a mathematical concept having to do with the comparison of sets. What I was unable to find was any explanation of what the 0.1 might mean. I realize that the answer to this question is beyond the scope of this topic but I'm curious. If you want to answer me privately that would be fine. I also realize you're probably real busy right now so I'll understand if you don't take the time to answer at all. Maybe somebody else reading this can answer my question.
Tom Stoddard

gcoupe
Posts: 603
Joined: 16 Mar 05 19:29
Location: Heelweg, The Netherlands

Re: Question About Handling of IPTC Extension Location Creat

Post by gcoupe » 28 Sep 12 16:31

Tom,

It's the term used in the IPTC Specification: http://www.iptc.org/site/index.html?channel=CH0099

It means that the metadata for the IPTC Extension Location Created fields can either not be present in the image metadata or just have one instance.
Geoff Coupe
--------------
Photo Supreme /Windows 10 Pro 64 bits + Windows Home Server 2011 = DAM

Hert
Posts: 21503
Joined: 13 Sep 03 7:24

Re: Question About Handling of IPTC Extension Location Creat

Post by Hert » 28 Sep 12 17:03

gcoupe wrote:Oh, wow! That will make things a lot simpler - I don't need to set up endless Detail Profiles, then?
That is correct, I hope to release it tomorrow.

@Tom; 0..1 (I typed 0.1 which is a typo) means the range for the length of the array (list). So 0..1 means that the array can be 0 or 1 elements long. 0..10 means up to 10 elements, while 0.. unbound means that it can have an "unlimited" number of elements.

Hert
This is a User-to-User forum which means that users post questions here for other users.
Feature requests, change suggestions, or bugs can be logged in the ticketing system

gcoupe
Posts: 603
Joined: 16 Mar 05 19:29
Location: Heelweg, The Netherlands

Re: Question About Handling of IPTC Extension Location Creat

Post by gcoupe » 28 Sep 12 18:22

Hert/IDimager wrote:
The IPTC Extension spec states that the Location Created entry MUST be either not there at all, or be a single array with multiple elements.
As mentioned above, this then fully defeats the purpose of defining this field as an array. They should have then defined this field as a structure field and not as an array of structures. This goes way beyond me.
Hert, Michael Steidl of the IPTC posted the following on the Controlled Vocabulary forum today, in response to a thread that I initiated regarding trying to get the metadata correct:
Group:
I'm happy to see that Hert reacted on that issue quickly to get IDimager's Photo Supreme aligned with the specs,
Thanks.

A word on why has Location Created a cardinality of 0..1 and is of the data type Bag, which is a sub-type of Array:
A standard like the IPTC Extension is created by an IPTC working group, having proposals and discussions. And in a first round the cardinality of Location Created was wider and in later round reduced to 1. One could argue that the Bag should have been removed at this stage - right, but it wasn't. And to maintain backward compatibility it is impossible to change the data type now.

Michael
I should just point out that I wasn't trying to lay the blame at your door for the failure of PS to be conformant with the IPTC specs, but rather in the manner in which I was trying to use it. I hope I made that clear in the Controlled Vocabulary thread.
Geoff Coupe
--------------
Photo Supreme /Windows 10 Pro 64 bits + Windows Home Server 2011 = DAM

Hert
Posts: 21503
Joined: 13 Sep 03 7:24

Re: Question About Handling of IPTC Extension Location Creat

Post by Hert » 29 Sep 12 8:10

Thank you for that Geoff. I also understand that Michael wasn't able to take the bag out of the specs if this was changed in a subsequent release of the specs.

Hert
This is a User-to-User forum which means that users post questions here for other users.
Feature requests, change suggestions, or bugs can be logged in the ticketing system

Hert
Posts: 21503
Joined: 13 Sep 03 7:24

Re: Question About Handling of IPTC Extension Location Creat

Post by Hert » 29 Sep 12 10:45

Geoff,
I've sent you a PM with a link to a test version.
Hert
This is a User-to-User forum which means that users post questions here for other users.
Feature requests, change suggestions, or bugs can be logged in the ticketing system

Post Reply