PL5 Searching doesn't work properly for all keywords in an hierarchy - only for "Selected" keywords

[BHAYT (Bryan [WIN10, PL9, VP5, FP7, G9, 5060Ti(16GB), 3060(12GB)])]

@Musashi

In order to move on on other topics, here is a recap of DxO upcoming implementations (already mentionned above)

@Musashi Before we move on can I clarify what I understand from the items mentioned, I was just starting to write this when @platypus made the following post.

@platypus

@Musashi

1/ Preference to apply all KW hierarchy to an image or just the selected child

We will add a preference to apply all KW hierarchy or just the selected one, this preference will be added in the Preferences menu.

2/ Compatibility mode
We will add a preference to add the keywords hierarchy in “DC subject”

These two points are unclear or even redundant. Can you give us examples of how XMP would look in the four possible cases?

or how do these points map onto the following;

1. The Pre-PL5.2.0 “animals”, “mammals”, “bear” and “black bear” versus the post PL5.2.0 (Win 10 numbering) of “black bear” in the ‘dc’ data fields. My “guess” would be this is covered by 1 in your list?

2. A selectable alternative to the Win 10 default option of just assigning the last (“leaf”) keyword when an hierarchical keyword has been input to allow all the keywords in the hierarchy to be assigned which produces a Capture One “alike” combination of ‘hr’ keyword combinations. This I have as item 2 in the list?

3. This presumes that the PL5.3.0 implementation of the original PL4 DOP strategy, but now with the greatly increased metadata payload, is retained intact with no change, e.g. to allow the user to select
   1 - AS(OFF) and expect the metadata to come from the image (the pre PL5.3.0 only “option”) or
   2 - AS(OFF) but expect the metadata to come from the DOP (since PL5.3.0 the only “option”)

i.e. effectively changing the priority for the source of metadata from the image metadata to the DOP metadata, regardless of the date/timestamps of either, when AS(OFF) - please see PL5.3.0 Re-instating the previous Features of PL5 with AS(OFF)?

4. No mention of the most important change, namely the preservation of the users meta data intact for export (at least) by preserving the input or providing an export option or whatever your designers provide that is superior to either of these two options.

@Musashi

Concerning the advanced metadata conflicts resolution, we are going to think about it and see whether or not we can propose something in a near future alongside the previous options mentionned.

Please do and sooner rather than later, its omission is just that - an omission, but thank you for acknowledging this issue.

In the meantime, I have realised (but not yet tested) that PL5 is probably “cheating” and assuming that any change in the image date/timestamps actually signals a change in metadata without actually testing for any specific change and then “raising the flag”, the ‘S’ icon. When a change is made to the metadata in PL5 that may or may not be a real change to the metadata but I see no reason why a change should not be assumed and the ‘S’ raised as an alert rather than leaving the user to remember what they did days or weeks before. we use computers for a reason - they are supposed to do the heavy lifting what is the use of a database that is not actually useful to the user as well as DxO!

6. Thank you, this is essential (see below)

@Musashi

3/ Option to search for whole KW hierarchy or just selected KW
We will add an option to choose whether to search the whole KW hierarchy or just the selected one (via contextual menu on the token or option button in search field with list of options, this is work in progress)

7. The following leaves me confused as to exactly what you mean. Are you referring to the fact that “animals|mammals||bear|black bear” would have the following

‘dc’ = “animals”, “mammals”, “bear” and “black bear” or just “black bear” as discussed above
'hr" = “animals”, “mammals”, “bear”, “black bear” and “animals|mammals|bear|black bear” as a minimum
versus
'hr" = “animals” and “animals|mammals|bear|black bear” as a minimum

with additional keywords assigned, the ‘hr’ fields would contain additional components of hierarchical elements as a result of the assignments described in my 2 above.

While others suppliers may/may not do something does not make them right or wrong, if in discussions with more learned DxPL users than me it appears that including all the flattened keywords in the ‘hr’ fields is deemed “good”, the actual code to include them is “trivial” but many users might object so another option would be useful.

If DxO is “paranoid” about including options then consider what alternatives may be appropriate but please don’t restrict the potential of the product because of a fear of making it “complicated” that is what documentation and the forum is for, please don’t “spoil the ship for a ha’pworth (halfpenny’s worth) of tar”, i.e. cutting corners is ultimately a waste!

@Musashi

Then regarding the MWG recommendations mentionned, they are not all up to date and other software do not follow it. The recommendations are for flattering of “mwg-kw:Keywords” tag. We do not support it at all. There is nothing about flattering of “lr:HierarchicalSubject” in MWG recommendations.

It has taken some of us a lot of effort to get this far, so much so that I will be greatly reducing the time I spend testing and dedicated to the forum going forward.