On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Emanuil Tolev <emanuil.to...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Right, so the image metadata sections of image formats are insufficient > for this purpose? > Yes. If you print the paper (and many people do) the metadata gets lost immediately > I can see how people (well, ill-intentioned publishers I guess) might just > mangle that section as it's much easier to edit than actual pixels... I > also guess you considered this option, but am interested in why it was > rejected. > If you look at an electronic image can you tell just by looking at it whether it has any metadata? I can't. And most people don't have tools where they know how to look for the metadata of a whole number of formats? I don't. And when the PNG is incorporated into the PDF is the image metadata preserved? I have no idea but I doubt it. And when someone snips an image the MD disappears immediately. And what is wrong with adding the metadata visually to the image? We do it to the text. As a simple example it would immediately mean that when we re-use Wikimedia we automatically can see the most important provenance. In general non-visible metadata gets lost very rapidly in any transformation chain. > > > On 7 August 2013 23:30, Peter Murray-Rust <pm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Brilliant - this was exactly what I was indicating - you have done it >> much better. >> >> >> > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list okfn-discuss@lists.okfn.org http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss