Does image processing software [or more generally any software] count as a
contributor for the DC metadata definition?
The "contributor" element is defined in a couple of places as 'a person or
organization ...', seeming to rule out software entities. However the
examples include editors. Red-eye reduction software (for example) is
generally
considered an image editing function, so could be identified as a
contributor were it not for the person or organization requirement.
Automatically invoked image processing steps in a production environment
are highly likely, and including as a contributor only the organization
that bought or developed the software that did the processing (such as a
retail photofinishing business, or a giant film & picture company) is of
limited utility.
On the other hand, metadata elements that describe the image editing
that has occurred would
* eliminate redundant processing steps. For
instance, there is probably little use in doing
red-eye reduction twice.
* allow searching to select images by processing that
has occurred.
* allow organization by processing that has/hasn't occurred
(to compare algorithm performance, for example).
N.B. Identifying both a person or organization and what he/she/it/they did
might be of greater utility than having just one of those.
I haven't seen applicable proposals in the sub-element working group draft
report nor the qualifiers working paper. [Did I miss them?] However, the
'role' sub element (as in Simon Cox' 27 July 1998 mail to the list) could
be suitable for this, although 'action taken' might be preferable to the
role--especially when the results are more important than the process.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Howard E. Bussey Applied Imaging Advanced Development
[log in to unmask] Eastman Kodak Company, 1/5/EP MC 35555
vox (+1) 716 253-6778 901 Elmgrove Road
fax (+1) 716 253-6284 Rochester NY 14653-5555
"I tried floccinaucinihilipilification and found it worthless"
|