[Matroska-devel] Re: Re: Re: Tag names

Age Bosma agebosma at home.nl
Tue Mar 16 13:40:31 CET 2004

Paul Bryson wrote:
>>>I'm pretty sure that Matroska is supposed to have a Beats Per
>>>Minute tag.  Is there a common one that fb2k currently stores?
>>I don't know about a foobar field being used for this. Let's hope more
>>people will respond in the forum thread. Maybe we should notify peter
>>about the thread?
> It looks like Steve wanted two fields.  From 04/14/2003:
> <robUx4> anyway what is needed is the BPM and a BPM Quality value (percentage)
> <robUx4> some better DJ programs might have more sophisticated things
> <robUx4> (different BPM in different sections of a track)

I see you added BEATS_PER_MINUTE now, to keep everything a bit more 
consistent and if you prefer this name instead of juts BPM I suggest 
BITSPS get's changed to BITS_PER_SECOND as well. Both could be changed 
to BPS and BPM as well although in case in BPM most people will know 
what it means BPS might be more confusing.

>>I think SET_PART is self descriptive enough as it is refering to
>>PARTINSET in id3. This can be used for the TRACKNUM info as well because
>>it's basically the same.
>>Maybe TOTAL_SET_PARTS should be added for the total information. 

This would be two seperate names while the total is just an extend to 
the first. Therefor I would prefer SET_PART and TOTAL_SET_PARTS 
(including the s unlike in the specs now) because both will be easy to 
understand once you know one of them and this won't cause any confusion.

>>As for the featuring of an artist, I must partially disagree, suppose
>>you have the latest Norah Jones album, the artist of that complete album
>>is Norah Jones but on one track ("number 07 - Creepen' in" to be more
>>specific) Dolly Parton is singing together with her as well. Because
>>Norah Jones is the main artist of that album Dolly Parton shouldn't be
>>included in the main artist label just for that one song imo.
>>On the other hand Dolly Parton could be included in the INVOLVED_PERSON
>>label for that one track but I'm not realy sure if this would be the
>>best place for it. What I do know is that introducing a new label for
>>this kind of information would be overkill.
> To me it seems natural to include Dolly in the main artist label for just that
> song.  Maybe we have different definitions for these tags?  This is why we need
> examples.

While she helped out in only one song on the album you don't see her 
name on the front cover of the album now do you? ;-)

>>One final thing I would like to get off my chest. I was amazed to see
>>how many tags where included in Matroska. I never expected to see an
>>attempt to combine all current tags into one system.
>>Like mentioned in the thread you pointed to earlier the whole tag field
>>stuff should be cleaned up a some stage although I agree in being
>>compatible with other tag fields as well. As a step in the right
>>direction we could created 2 specs. Something like "Matroska" and
>>"Matroska lite" where the first one includes all the tag fields like now
>>and the lite version only includes the more usefull and necessary
> Possibly the "Matroska Common Tags"?
>>In the Matroska specs people will be pointed to the lite version
>>as much as possible and if realy realy realy needed people can use the
>>complete spec of tag fields. What's your opinion about this?
> I like it.
> Although, you should probably recognize that the Tags system has already been
> lightened quite a bit.  Just look at the old system:
> http://matroska.org/technical/specs/tagging/oldtags.html

Bloody... :-S

I updated my document again. Your changes so far are included and I'll 
mark the nested id3 fields later on today.

I would like to suggest to move the "Titles" section to the to pof the 
page or maybe underneath the "General" section. This would be a more 
logical position because it's more important compared to the rest of the 
tag fields. Also AMOUNT should maybe be placed above CURRENCY.

As for the consistent and logical naming of fields I would like to 
propose to change the following in the current specs:
   FILE itself doesn't say anything about the content and because 
ORIGINAL_.... is used in multiple places...
   I'm not a 100% sure about changing this one but desided to mention it 
   Because it's used in together with DATE_END
   ARTIST is used in all other tag types and means the same thing, imo 
it would be unwise to do something completely different in this case.
   This description is to vague and open. Maybe ORIGINAL_x shold be 
included in the specs meaning "ORIGINAL_ can be placed infront of every 
field to indicate it's origin, e.g. ORIGINAL_ALBUM, ORIGINAL_ARTIST, 
etc." it might not make sence in all cases but it can be used in almost 
all cases.
   Not sure again if this would be wise to change though.

I know, it does look a bit drastic and I may have overlooked some as 
well but I figured while we are at changing the specs we might as well 
do it right ;-)



More information about the Matroska-devel mailing list