Redacted
cridgit
Posts: 1,757
Redacted
Post edited by cridgit on
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Cridgit - you mentioned in another thread on metadata that standards exist; I'm coming up dry trying to find them.
Pointer or link, please?
They exist but aren't published...
As far as I can tell, it's an in-house document that may or may not ever see the light of day.
They exist but aren't published...
As far as I can tell, it's an in-house document that may or may not ever see the light of day.
Well, that's a heckuva lotta help.
Redacted
Well, that's a heckuva lotta help.
That's the whole problem. While DAZ has published their standard categories, they haven't published any guidelines on what goes where, what content types to use or how to name products etc. EDIT: Nor do they appear to be enforcing said standards.
Ah - and NOW I understand your frustration from the other posts.
From my previous experience in the DP sector an unpublished standard is a non-existent standard.
Thanks for the answer.
I think,,, meta-data should be perfect , I have never known such really crazy data which offered with products :coolcheese:
DAZ meta-data has been really Madness,,
so if,,, if,,, the new almost-perfect metadata are released,, I should say congraturation!!
(but it shoud be usuall for product,,, so I think,,
we (daz customer) become unsensitive about daz unreliability.
I am not native,, so I can not clear the true intention of this topic,,
(I felt it is irony at first glance,, ^^;)
I really hope daz remove this true basic meta-data problem.
if daz concentrate it,, daz must get more benefit.
I am tired to mention about meta-data too.
The standards exist and are published:
Content Types and Default Categories.
As Cridgit said, there are no guidelines defining what is what. In fact, almost every product with metadata has wrong categorization in some way. Even so recent releases come with old standard categories applied. Products are updated and nobody updates metadata or Read Me pages. It is a shame!
The standards exist and are published:
Content Types and Default Categories.
As Cridgit said, there are no guidelines defining what is what. In fact, almost every product with metadata has wrong categorization in some way. Even so recent releases come with old standard categories applied. Products are updated and nobody updates metadata or Read Me pages. It is a shame!
Those are two lists of objects - with no visible documented relationship to each other. I found them, in the 'document' for creating metadata, and that was the source of the original question. Like "what's an actor" and "what replaces 'default' as the top level for an actual product?".
I once had the misfortune of working with a database that was as severe a case of an inverted tree design I've ever heard of. One - count them, ONE- object, called 'standard', with all real information defined as access paths to 'standard'. I'm hoping this isn't the case here.
Well, dzFire may have done the metadata hisself. Just saying.
Quite likely...
One of the problems I have is that sometimes, what I think something should be and what the available categories are bear no relation to each other...so, I'm faced with sticking it somewhere I don't think it should be or creating a new category (which is frowned on, most of the time). And where I end up putting is not likely to be where someone else will want it to be...now multiply that by everyone else making things. Yes, even with a published standard, that will happen, sometimes...but hopefully a lot less.
My logical location isn't the same as yours...but I can easily use someone else's LOGICAL classification system. (And just because Poser used POSES to hold materials still doesn't mean it's logical.)
Quite likely...
One of the problems I have is that sometimes, what I think something should be and what the available categories are bear no relation to each other...so, I'm faced with sticking it somewhere I don't think it should be or creating a new category (which is frowned on, most of the time). And where I end up putting is not likely to be where someone else will want it to be...now multiply that by everyone else making things. Yes, even with a published standard, that will happen, sometimes...but hopefully a lot less.
My logical location isn't the same as yours...but I can easily use someone else's LOGICAL classification system. (And just because Poser used POSES to hold materials still doesn't mean it's logical.)
I agree that if a system is logical, even if our own is logical but different, we can use and be comfortable with the other system given we actually know what it is.
btw, I'm sure you know that holding materials in POSES wasn't Poser. It was users who discovered that it works and at the time this solved a major problem that Poser had not yet solved---the large amount of content combined with a hard limit on the number of items allowed in a library folder. It wasn't even logical for the users it was merely a hairsaver. I also stored mat files in HAIR, HANDS (even happily answering the meaningless in this context 'right' or 'left' hand), CAMERAS and FACES. LIGHTS were more problematic because if you applied a mat file from the LIGHTS folder, all your lights went off. :) Those were fun times.
I agree that if a system is logical, even if our own is logical but different, we can use and be comfortable with the other system given we actually know what it is.
btw, I'm sure you know that holding materials in POSES wasn't Poser. It was users who discovered that it works and at the time this solved a major problem that Poser had not yet solved---the large amount of content combined with a hard limit on the number of items allowed in a library folder. It wasn't even logical for the users it was merely a hairsaver. I also stored mat files in HAIR, HANDS (even happily answering the meaningless in this context 'right' or 'left' hand), CAMERAS and FACES. LIGHTS were more problematic because if you applied a mat file from the LIGHTS folder, all your lights went off. :) Those were fun times.
Those kind of hard limits haven't existed, at an OS/filesystem level since the days of DOS...so, yes, it's Poser's fault for imposing them long after they ceased to matter. (Whichever version of DOS that introduced long filenames/was included with Win95...and never existed for Macs/Unix derivatives/Linux.)