[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TIKA-1607?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15195882#comment-15195882
 ] 

Tim Allison commented on TIKA-1607:
-----------------------------------

Y, makes sense. It might be more easily configurable to use the 
ParsingEmbeddedDocExtractor as is and let users write their own XMP parsers, 
no?  That would allow for all of the benefits of easy configurability (thank 
you, Nick!) of parsers for advanced handling of XMP.  

Or is there a reason to avoid that option?

The one benefit to storing encoded bytes in the metadata object is that clients 
in other languages could decode and process.  That said, I much prefer the 
direction you're recommending here.

> Introduce new arbitrary object key/values data structure for persistence of 
> Tika Metadata
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: TIKA-1607
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TIKA-1607
>             Project: Tika
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: core, metadata
>            Reporter: Lewis John McGibbney
>            Assignee: Lewis John McGibbney
>            Priority: Critical
>             Fix For: 1.13
>
>         Attachments: TIKA-1607_bytes_dom_values.patch, 
> TIKA-1607v1_rough_rough.patch, TIKA-1607v2_rough_rough.patch, 
> TIKA-1607v3.patch
>
>
> I am currently working implementing more comprehensive extraction and 
> enhancement of the Tika support for Phone number extraction and metadata 
> modeling.
> Right now we utilize the String[] multivalued support available within Tika 
> to persist phone numbers as 
> {code}
> Metadata: String: String[]
> Metadata: phonenumbers: number1, number2, number3, ...
> {code}
> I would like to propose we extend multi-valued support outside of the 
> String[] paradigm by implementing a more abstract Collection of Objects such 
> that we could consider and implement the phone number use case as follows
> {code}
> Metadata: String:  Object
> {code}
> Where Object could be a Collection<HashMap<String/Property, 
> HashMap<String/Property, String/Int/Long>> e.g.
> {code}
> Metadata: phonenumbers: [(+162648743476: (LibPN-CountryCode : US), 
> (LibPN-NumberType: International), (etc: etc)...), (+1292611054: 
> LibPN-CountryCode : UK), (LibPN-NumberType: International), (etc: etc)...) 
> (etc)] 
> {code}
> There are obvious backwards compatibility issues with this approach... 
> additionally it is a fundamental change to the code Metadata API. I hope that 
> the <String, Object> Mapping however is flexible enough to allow me to model 
> Tika Metadata the way I want.
> Any comments folks? Thanks
> Lewis



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to