[Matroska-devel] Re: Re: Re: Re: Tag names
agebosma at home.nl
Wed Mar 17 23:14:23 CET 2004
Paul Bryson wrote:
> The BITSPS can't be changed because it is already being used. However, the
> BEATS_PER_MINUTE could be changed to either BPM or BEATSPM if you think one or
> the other makes more sense.
Too bad :-(
In that cse I would prefer BEATSPM to stay consistent with the FRAMESPS
>>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.
> Despite what I wrote in the email, I actually put this in the specs:
> These should cover both the TRCK and TPOS tags in ID3.
I noticed. Because you mentioned it in the e-mail made it unclear if you
where still in doubt about that one.
>>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? ;-)
> No, but I am guessing that her name is in the booklet under that song. I'm sure
> that if you did a poll, you would find that there are a lot of people that would
> store this information under different places. We really need examples to say
> what is appropriate.
INVOLVED_PERSON would be a good place to store it but that name isn't
very descriptive in this case. We could just change that on to FEATURING
but I don't know if it would couse problems in other cases.
>>- PRODUCT -> ORIGINAL_PRODUCT or maybe even ORIGINAL_PRODUCT_NAME
> Perhaps, given the description, it should be INTENDED_PRODUCT? This tag comes
> from the RIFF specs and I couldn't find a very good description of it.
You got a point, my Enlish isn't perfect but wouldn't DESIGNATED_PRODUCT
be even better? If no, INTENDED_PRODUCT is just fine.
>>- INSTRUMENT -> INSTRUMENTS
> This change might induce somebody to store more than one instrument in a tag,
> which is a no-no. From the specs, "Multiple items should never be stored as a
> list in a single TagString."
The reason I mentioned it was because it doesn't happen a lot that only
one instrument is used in a song. Therefor it should be made clear it's
possible (by an example again as well) to use the field multiple time if
that's the case in the first place.
>>- DATE_RELEASE_ORIGINAL -> DATE_ORIGINAL_RELEASE
> Is that really better with DATE_RELEASE just above it? To my eyes it looks
> better this way, but I am not sure. I asked in IRC and one person responded
> that they prefer DRO. "don't you like french word order?"
I prefer sticking to the main sequence in which the word ORIGINAL_ is
used in the other fields. In this case you (probably) want to keep DATE_
in front otherwise I would have changed it to ORIGINAL_RELEASE_DATE.
And no, I don't like french word order (no offence intended). ;-)
>>- DATE -> DATE_START
>> Because it's used in together with DATE_END
> I originally started with DATE_START but changed it. It makes little sense for
> most items where you only tag a single date, and not a start and end date.
>>- LEAD_PERFORMER -> ARTIST
> Should a difference be made between lead performer and other performers?
>>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.
> I assumed it was the same as the ID3v2 TPE1 tag, the Vorbis PERFORMER tag, the
> CD CDROM_CD_TEXT_PACK_PERFORMER tag, and the RIFF ISTR tag? Should there be a
> difference between a lead performer and any other artist?
It's not the same as the Vorbis PERFORMER tag as you look at the
descriptions closely, this field should be placed with CONDUCTOR like in
my reference. Also for ID3 and APE ARTIST are the only fields that come
close enough to the LEAD_PERFORMER Matroska field.
From a e.g. a jazz point of view you may speak about LEAD_PERFORMER
together with BAND but everyone will know what you mean if you use
ARTIST and BAND in this case as well. This makes it possible to use the
ARTIST field for e.g. just "Dire Straits" or "Slipknot" as well and
therefor being fully compatible with the other tag types. Using
LEAD_PERFORMER in a "Dire Straits" or "Slipknot" context makes much less
>> 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
> In some cases the "ORIGINAL" title is used for remakes (ORIGINAL_ARTIST). In
> others it is used to denote the source (ORIGINAL_FILE). I would hate for these
> two to get confused. Is there something that you could recommend?
It's still basicly the same imo. Did you read my other extra post about
this? If we include a new level for all "original" info this would rule
out confusion and clean up a lot of fields we have at the moment.
>>- INVOLVED_PERSON -> CREDITS
>> Not sure again if this would be wise to change though.
> I think that CREDITS sounds better and would probably be more intuitive, but it
> would probably induce people to store a list in a single tag instead of multiple
Drop it completely and add FEATURING like mentioned earlier in this mail.
>>- EDITION -> VERSION
> For DVDs, this is always referred to as the Edition. For instance, I have DVDs
> that are "Directors Cut", "Collector's", "Ultimate", and various other editions.
> Is this done differently with CDs?
If it comes to songs I think VERSION would be more suitable. Like "Fear
Factory - New Breed (Spoetnik Mix)" or "Linkin Park - Dedicated (Demo
1999)". They talk about different versions of the song. If you look
strictly at the definition of both words VERSION would be more suitable
in both cases, dvd and audio.
Maybe we should think about a more general name for this instead.
> One other thing, where should we store if a source was widescreen or fullscreen?
> And I mean in a generic sense. The dimensional proportions could always go in
> ORIGINAL_DIMENSIONS. Should there be a different place where someone could just
> write "Widescreen" or "Fullscreen"? Maybe "Anamorphic Widescreen" (1.66:1 to
> 2.35:1) and "Full Frame" (1.33:1)?
That would be a duplicate entry. I think only the ratio will be fine
because most people using terms like "widescreen" or "fullscreen" will
probably know what they are talking about and therefor know the ratio as
well. If we give people an extra option they will most likely leave out
the actual ratio which imo will describe it more accurately and will
rule out any mistakes.
> How would you store this DVD of mine?
> Bruce Campbell vs. Army Of Darkness
> The Director' Cut
> Official Bootleg Edition
> Widescreen Presentation
> Photos available here:
> And yes, the DVD actually says "DVD-R4x Not Really Recordable 96 MIN" and
> "Un-Recordable 1x-4x Compatible"
I'll work on a sample tomorrow, the site with the photo's is down and
it's getting late. ;-)
More information about the Matroska-devel