[MPRIS] User rating read-only

[Charles Brière]

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Alex Merry <kde at randomguy3.me.uk> wrote:

> On 02/05/12 11:43, mirsal wrote:
>
>> However, rating a track might not be the same thing as simply replacing
>> the 'userRating' metadata entry (media players might want to mix manual
>> and algorithmic rating or have multiple sources of rating, see:
>> https://gitorious.org/xdg-**specs/xdg-specs/blobs/master/**
>> specifications/FMPSpecs/**specification.txt<https://gitorious.org/xdg-specs/xdg-specs/blobs/master/specifications/FMPSpecs/specification.txt>)
>>
>> It might then be a good idea to handle rating separately, perhaps by
>> using specific a method for that purpose.
>>
>
> Well, media players can do what they want with the value they receive;
> client should never assume with the MPRIS2 interface that asking the media
> player to set a value (eg: when seeking) will actually cause that value to
> be set.  They should be listening to the PropertiesChanged signal instead.
>
> I think userRating is fairly clearly "the rating that the user has given
> this track".  Xesam also has an autoRating element.  I guess we could
> define values based on FMP as well.
>
> We have a more general issue with metadata, which is that Xesam is dead[1]
> (long live Nepomuk[2]).  The Xesam spec is no longer available online,
> except some old versions on the Wayback Machine.  I don't know what we want
> to do about this; we don't want to break compatibility, but there is not
> really a reference available for adding more "standard" elements (which was
> the original point of using Xesam).  I guess we can add mpris: elements as
> and when we feel they are needed, though[4].
>
> I should point out that I don't think using Nepomuk is sensible for our
> purposes, as that is an RDF ontology not really suited for a metadata list
> like we have.
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> [1]: http://trueg.wordpress.com/**2009/04/29/xesam_vs_nepomuk/<http://trueg.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/xesam_vs_nepomuk/>
> [2]: http://www.semanticdesktop.**org/ontologies/<http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/>
> [3]: http://web.archive.org/web/**20081012050951/http://xesam.**
> org/main/XesamOntology90<http://web.archive.org/web/20081012050951/http://xesam.org/main/XesamOntology90>
> [4]: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/**Specifications/mpris-spec/**metadata<http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/mpris-spec/metadata>


Would their be a problem using only Nepomuk's terms, not everything around
it? At least their would be accessible documentation on what form of data
needs to be passed. Those which would create type issues could keep the
mpris: instead for compatibility (and maybe add a new Nepomuk way).

Charles


>
> ______________________________**_________________
> MPRIS mailing list
> MPRIS at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/**mailman/listinfo/mpris<http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mpris>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mpris/attachments/20120502/82d48662/attachment.html>