In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Justin
Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Aug 30, 2007, at 8:22 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
and class="position" for the track number.
What do you do for the tracks on the second or subsequent disc of a
multi-disc set?
Good question! For vinyl (double-sided), I've been using A1, A2, B1,
B2, etc., but that doesn't seem scalable. I just did a bit of research
and found this:
http://atomicparsley.sourceforge.net/mpeg-4files.html
Based on the data here, I'd propose changing "position" to
"track_number", and using "disk_number" for multi-disc sets. Do you
think that would work?
Yes; it seems sensible to re-use field names form exiting and relevant
schema.
We should also be careful to distinguish /types/ of identifier
(catalogue number, UID, ISBN, Amazon-ASIN, etc.)
Since those other than catalogue number are proprietary
identification methods, i.e., identifers for external systems, the
role of
"identifier" should go to the primary source, the record
label or publisher.
ISBN is not "proprietary", neither are "International Standard Music
Number:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Music_Number>
and the other, related identifiers listed at the foot of that page.
Perhaps we need type/ value pairs for them?
"Proprietary," as in "something owned, trademarked, registered, or
protected." ISO developed ISBN and ISMN, so I believe those formats
would be considered proprietary to ISO. But I don't mean to bicker for
the sake of argument
Fair enough - but as international standards, they're available and we
should take heed of them.
Type/value would certainly be a good solution (I see you've mentioned
that before in the archives...just catching up now...
My memory..!
I disagree that the URL of a downloadable file would be a sufficient
unique identifier)
There's a one-to-many relationship, which can be problematic, if you nee
to know whether two URLs refer to the same, or a different recording/
composition. To a lesser degree, though the same can be said for ISBN.
Conversely, some record companies have been known to use the same
catalogue number for two different recording of the same track.
So, having browsed http://microformats.org/wiki/uid-brainstorming, I'd
like to know if you think that the previously-proposed abbr format
would work?
<abbr class="uid" title="urn:ismn:555555">5 555 55</abbr>
<abbr class="uid" title="catalog">DTR008</abbr>
Technically, perhaps, but be aware of the accessibility concerns about
"abbr":
<http://microformats.org/wiki/accessibility-issues#abbr-design-pattern>
I realize I'm rehashing a conversation that already came and went in
June, but I'm new to the list.
We all start somewhere...
--
Andy Mabbett
_______________________________________________
microformats-new mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
