[Clipart] Is anyone working on categorizing the existing images?

[Karl Ove Hufthammer]

"Áki G. Karlsson" <aki at akademia.is> wrote in
news:opr89988gcbnhb89 at localhost:

> Can't we just have both?
>
> I mean, a limited number of strong categories,

Or strong keywords. In other words, a *controlled* vocabulary of
keywords (containg e.g. 'France, food and flags'). Just using
free-form keywords will lead to lots of different keywords that
mean ~the same thing (cf. IMDb). A controlled vocabulary avoids
this. Trying to create only a fixed hierarchy, and shoe-horning
each image into one category is bound to fail.

In addition to the controlled vocabulary of keywords, we can have
a hierarchy structure based on these strong keywords.

The point is: Images aren't placed in hierarchical categories,
they have keywords assigned to them. The hierarchy is a separate
thing.

The hierarchy could look like this:

Countries
  Flags
  Maps
  Individual countries
    France
    ...

Food
  Fruit and vegetables
  Meat
  Drink

Images and the hierarchy are only linked by the strong keywords.
Different projects may create different hierarchies for their own
needs (e.g. only a subtree, or more or less detailed (e.g.
seperate fruit and vegetables, or lump all foods in one
category)).

Of course, all these *needs* to be localisable (translatable). It
will be best if US English is *not* a 'special' language here. The
strong keywords must internally only be stored as codes (numbers
or such), and translations (English, French, &c.) linked to these.

> selection at file upload just to place the images on the
> website index with "miscellaneous" as default (assuming that
> there will be a browseable index with thumbnails somewhere)
> and weak categorization as a recommendation for keywords to be
> put into the metadata of the file itself.

I like this. The weak keywords / descriptions would usually only
apply one or perhaps two images.

But is this metadata stored in the SVG files localisable?

-- 
Karl Ove Hufthammer