Future version eight hopes and suggestions.

[lanerellis 0]

Hello fellow TMG users,

 

I love TMG, have used it for many years now, and have no plans to switch to other software. There are two features I hope TMG will add to a not-so-distance future version:

 

1. Let users have access to all of the embedded EXIF, IPTC and XMP metadata in their image files.

 

2. Let users choose a hosted online dataset on either their own server, a hosting firm's server, or on Wholly Genes servers, to allow full TMG Web functionality working from any location with an Internet connection.

 

I use Photools iMatch image database along with TMG, and will be highly disappointed if EXIF, IPTC and XMP metadata support is not included in the next major iteration of the program. I can't imagine I'm alone in this request, and suspect that Bob V. and crew are already working on this.

 

With so-called cloud computing making more applications available online all the time, I would be disappointed if Wholly Genes was not working on an easy way for its users to optionally host their dataset(s) online, with all of the functionality of the stand-alone application. Imagine being able to research from any Internet-connected location without having to worry about the present hassle of synchronizing multiple copies of a dataset on a home desktop, a work desktop, several laptops, and computers at the homes of friends or relatives.

 

It's exciting to see what new innovations the wonderful TMG software will include in future releases, and I hope these two suggestions might be forthcoming.

 

Best Regards,

Lane R. Ellis

[Pierce.Reid 0]

Hello fellow TMG users,

 

I love TMG, have used it for many years now, and have no plans to switch to other software. There are two features I hope TMG will add to a not-so-distance future version:

 

1. Let users have access to all of the embedded EXIF, IPTC and XMP metadata in their image files.

 

2. Let users choose a hosted online dataset on either their own server, a hosting firm's server, or on Wholly Genes servers, to allow full TMG Web functionality working from any location with an Internet connection.

 

I use Photools iMatch image database along with TMG, and will be highly disappointed if EXIF, IPTC and XMP metadata support is not included in the next major iteration of the program. I can't imagine I'm alone in this request, and suspect that Bob V. and crew are already working on this.

 

With so-called cloud computing making more applications available online all the time, I would be disappointed if Wholly Genes was not working on an easy way for its users to optionally host their dataset(s) online, with all of the functionality of the stand-alone application. Imagine being able to research from any Internet-connected location without having to worry about the present hassle of synchronizing multiple copies of a dataset on a home desktop, a work desktop, several laptops, and computers at the homes of friends or relatives.

 

It's exciting to see what new innovations the wonderful TMG software will include in future releases, and I hope these two suggestions might be forthcoming.

 

Best Regards,

Lane R. Ellis

For those wishing to explore the EXIF and IPTC data on the jpg files from their digital cameras, you can download irfanview (from irfanview.com), image editing software that is free for personal use. It provides access to this information. Cameras store quite a bit of technical data about the exposure within the EXIF section of the file. IPTC data is usually data users can add, such as copyright notice, captions, keywords, etc.

 

Other programs can add more data. For example, I have a Sony GPS logger with software to merge GPS location information to the EXIF data. Then irfanview can launch Google Earth to pinpoint where the picture was taken. For example, it would be neat if TMG could fill in the LatLong field from an attached exhibit containing that information. I plan to use it when exploring cemeteries, so I can locate grave sites of interest.

 

Pierce

[Andrew Clark 0]

I am 100% in agreement for these enhancements for next version - however......

 

Part of the problem I see is lack of uniformity in use for these metadata fields. Read various articles and you'll see diverse suggestions as to field descriptions and what goes in each field. For example one field can be varuiously called "user Comments" in one program, through to "description" in another.

 

Personally, what I believe we need first is a defined set of XMP fields for use in the Genealogy industry.

 

For example, we have a photo of Mary smith; outside the town hall; Anytown; Anystate; in Mycountry, whilst on a European holiday trip in 1923. If there is not a defined set of MetaTags for family history and we all second guess Exif fields then any interpretation by TMG could be useless as differing bits of data will end up all over the place. The caption for the above photo could equally end up as "Mary Smith" or "outside the Town Hall" or anything else.

 

My Thoughts are:

Do such standards exist?

Is there a group working on such standars?

Is TMG involved in any such push?

 

Cheers, Andrew

[Michael Hannah 0]

Personally, what I believe we need first is a defined set of XMP fields for use in the Genealogy industry... My Thoughts are: Do such standards exist? Is there a group working on such standards?

Hi Andrew,

 

If you search a bit on the Internet you will find two major standards groups working on the issue of metadata for digital image files: IPTC and the MetaData Working Group . Almost all the efforts of both groups seem to be focused on standardizing metadata about the original creation of the image, e.g. f-stop, exposure, etc. I don't believe they have yet adopted/agreed on all the metadata fields that should exist to describe even all that! There appears to be some effort to begin specifing fields about the content of the image, such as the proposal of the 2008 IPTC Extension to the IPTC Photo Metadata standard. Yet these content metadata fields are only beginning to be discussed, such as last month at the June 2009 Photo Metadata Conference held in Dresden, Germany. As an example, the proposed IPTC Extension seems to specify a lot of content fields with very specific meanings. These proposed metadata fields "as is" appear useful to a genealogy program, such as a set of fields to store the name, age, and other such descriptive data of each individual in the image, as well as a set of fields to describe a lot about the location shown in the image.

 

In addition, the Visual Resources Association, a standards body for librarians cataloging images, has already developed a comprehensive set of metadata for use with images (see this site). Their standard consists of a metadata element set (units of information such as title, location, date, etc.), as well as an initial blueprint for how those elements can be hierarchically structured. The element set provides a categorical organization for the description of works of visual culture as well as the images that document them. I suspect that the camera industry will look to such other standard bodies, like the VRA, for ideas for their own metadata fields for images.

 

While your concerns are extremely valid, it seems to me a bit premature for genealogy groups to discuss standardizing on what genealogy data will go in particular content metadata fields when the camera industry etc. have not yet agreed on what content metadata fields will even be offered. My current perception of this metadata standards effort is that there will be plenty enough standard fields to describe content which will each be very specific in their purpose and intended data. Since the image industry is likely to view genealogy as a small subset of the audiance for metadata, I suspect that the field of genealogy in general and genealogy software in particular will have to simply adapt to these fields and specifications after the standards have stablized. My guess is that the image industry itself has several years to go before such new content specifications are adopted and widely implemented.

 

Just my opinion, but it is based on 40 years of actively working with international commercial standards organizations.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Michael Hannah

[vabopi 0]

Here is a simple suggestion that I would very much appreciate:

 

The Easy Search looks for surnames - first letter of first surname. Most individuals in my database have several surnames, and the most significant is usually not the first, what makes the use of ES as it is rather uneasy, since I seldom know that first magical letter. In fact I scroll up and down the Project Explorer that I keep sorted by Given name, Surname, Birth date. 

 

I suspect that most of the users that deal with complex names that do not follow the rule (given name, middle, surname) have difficulties on this, tending to sort the database by the Given name.  

 

Would it be possible to let the user choose that ES parameter ?

 

   

[altenbernd 0]

if the project explorer sort is set to Given name,..... then when you select a letter from the easy search tool bar, you will be positioned at the first given name that begins with that letter.

 

Sheila Altenbernd

 

The Easy Search looks for surnames - first letter of first surname.

 

Would it be possible to let the user choose that ES parameter ?

 

   

[vabopi 0]

 Thanks for your tip. It led me to investigate why it didn't work for me.

I found that when I set the sort order to "Data set" (or possibly others options) and then back to my usual "Given name, Surname, Birth date", the ES still looks for the Surname. After some time, I verified that I have to choose "Given name, Surname, Death date" to put it to work properly, and then to "Given name, Surname, Birth date". This may be a bug.

Edited August 30, 2009 by vabopi