Fwd: Re: [Clipart] metadata: aren't the keywords actually categories (and can keywords be added)?

Mike Traum mtraum at yahoo.com
Fri Apr 15 16:00:24 PDT 2005

Forwarding to the list again ... hehehe...


--- Andrew Archibald <andrew.archibald at sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Mike Traum wrote:
> > Anyway, when you describe the localized packages for end users, I
> > assume you mean something similar to what is being done now, with
> > clips extracted into a directory structure? If so, this is my
> concern
> > about having an image with mutiple categories (which, many will
> > surely have). Do you have multiple copies of the file in the
> tarball?
> > Seems redundant. You could use symbolic links, but then you'd
> have to
> > distrubute separate packages for different OS's (besides the fact
> > that I doubt MS shortcuts play nice with other tools, for example
> > image organizing applications such as ThumbsPlus). This is why I
> like
> > the idea of one big xml, assumming there was a clip organizer
> > application to go along with it.
> One big XML is totally useless to applications that don't
> understand the 
> format.  Currently, I can use OCAL images in the GIMP, Inkscape,
> Mozilla 
> Composer, etc. etc.  Many of those can only handle bitmaps; that's
> fine, 
> since the package contains bitmaps.
> It's true that people who can run the specialized clipart-tool can
> extract 
> files from the XML and save them to somewhere in their home
> directory, but 
> this adds an extra step before using the image in each of those
> programs. 
> And if you can't use the specialized clipart-tool... (for example,
> I don't 
> have a Java VM on my machine).
> If the problem is "what do you do with files in multiple
> categories", there 
> are lots of solutions.  Hard links are great; symlinks are fine
> too.  If 
> you use tar, whatever tool untars the files will presumably do a
> credible 
> job of simulating them on machines that don't have them (probably
> make 
> copies for hardlinks and shortcuts (?) for symlinks).  Extra copies
> are 
> fine too, unless we get loads of files in too many categories.  You
> could 
> even just fall back to putting the file in the "best" (or first)
> place that 
> comes to mind.
> > The whole reason I've been lurking here is because I'm interested
> in
> > writing a os independent (java-based) GPL'd clip organizer
> similar to
> > what MS has with their Office suite. Then, you can import these
> > packages (as well as Microsoft's, and whoever else is
> dirtributing
> > clip packages w/ metadata) and still have them searchable on the
> > client side. You'd no longer need to distribute thumbnails, as
> the
> > clip organizer would be able to do this as well. And, you'd be
> able
> > to see the properties of the file (copyright, etc) from a decent
> > interface. This effort shouldn't really be that hard, but I want
> to
> > make sure that openclipart is moving towards a package structure
> that
> > would be ameniable to such an effort. Otherwise, I'd only be
> allowing
> > import of MS's files, which many users can't legally use (under
> their
> > EULA).
> Surely you can support any format we document, without much
> trouble?
> Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> clipart mailing list
> clipart at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/clipart

Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. 

More information about the clipart mailing list