On 12/07/06/12/06 21:37 +0000, Jamie McCracken wrote:
><extraction>
> <Entity uri="/home/jamie/music/moonlight.ogg">
> <metadata name="Audio.Title">Moonlight Sonata</metadata>
> <metadata name="Audio.Artist">Beethoven</metadata>
> </entity>
>
> <Entity uri="/home/jamie/music/moonlight.ogg">
> <metadata name="Audio.Title">Moonlight Sonata</metadata>
> <metadata name="Audio.Artist">Beethoven</metadata>
> </entity>
></extraction>
just that you know, this format is exactly RDF! So instead of reinventing
the wheel, maybe we want to just use the RDF format for storing these
extracted metadata?
RDF has several serialisations. In RDF/XML your data would look like:
<tracker:Entity rdf:about="file:///home/jamie/music/moonlight.ogg">
<audio:title>Moonlight Sonata</audio:title>
<audio:artist>Beethoven</audio:title>
</tracker:Entity>
In turtle format it would be:
<file:///home/jamie/music/moonlight.ogg> rdf:type tracker:Entity .
<file:///home/jamie/music/moonlight.ogg> audio:title "Moonlight Sonata" .
<file:///home/jamie/music/moonlight.ogg> audio:artist "Beethoven" .
Advantages of RDF is that extending and adding 'fields' to your data is
trivial, and you don't need to reinvent an xml grammar. Plus exchanging and
merging data (e.g. from various extractors) is trivial. So one extractor
could maybe do title/artist while another does last-modified-date.
There are several standard RDF parsers available, Redland [1] is well
known, stable, fast, and lightweight. And it's in C ;-)
If I understood this discussion correctly, RDF would be quite easy to use
here as data container. You're of course free to use any vocabulary you
want (instead of e.g. tracker:Entity and audio:title), those were just
examples.
-eyal
[1] http://librdf.org
_______________________________________________
tracker-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list
