Re: [uf-discuss] haudio contributor

[Manu Sporny]

Andy Mabbett wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manu Sporny
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> 
>> If only one contributor is listed, it is assumed that he/she/it is also
>> the creator of the hAudio. If multiple contributors are listed, it is
>> assumed that the first contributor is the creator, and all subsequent
>> contributors played supporting roles in the creation of the hAudio.
> 
> That fails as soon as we want to mark up something like:
> 
> Simon Rattle conducted the CBSO in a marvellous rendition of
> Beethoven's Fifth

Yes, the use of 'contributor' falls apart completely when we have markup
like that... which is uncommon.

You should have noted that markup such as that is an edge case. Look at
the audio-info-examples and you will be lucky if you find 1 or 2
instances of the markup you describe above.

My point is that it is easy to manufacture words that break hAudio - but
much harder to find actual examples online that break it.

If you have issues with this approach, you can always use hAudio RDFa,
which does make the distinction between "dc:creator" and
"dc:contributor". If you wanted to be even more specific, just include
the Music Ontology vocabulary and mark it up using that.

>> Thus, it can be said:
>>
>> Not all contributors are creators.
>> Not all contributors are artists.
> 
> That can certainly be said. However, it cannot be expressed in hAudio
> without requiring the publishers of such examples to re-order their
> content. It is a microformats "principle" to not do so.

For the publishers that need to re-order their content to mark up
hAudio, they are obviously stretching what hAudio uF can do, and should
use hAudio RDFa.

>> Thus, we should not narrow the "who made it?" behind hAudio down to
>> those more narrow categories.
> 
> Your conclusion is not supported by the forgoing claims.

Then does doing this support my conclusion:

*waves hands wildly in the air*

=P

More seriously:

We don't have enough examples to split "contributor" into "label",
"publisher", "creator", and "artist" - which is what the examples showed
to be the most prominently displayed contributors across the 93+ sites
that we analyzed for hAudio.

>>> It doesn't seem to be based on established practice, as from the
>>> overview it looks like existing markup overwhelming uses 'artist'.
>>> http://microformats.org/wiki/audio-info-brainstorming#artist
>> If we used artist, we would not have been able to mark up publishers,
>> composers, audio technicians, etc.
> 
> If we used *only* 'artist', perhaps, but not if we used 'artist' *AND*
> 'composer' + 'technician'.

There aren't enough examples that list the composer or the technician to
make the argument for adding those into hAudio. You're more than welcome
to go back through the audio-info-examples and re-analyze all of the
sites to prove your point, though.

-- manu
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] haudio contributor

[Manu Sporny]

Andy Mabbett wrote:
> It seems strange that the microformat does not distinguish between the
> main "contributor" and others. 

It does - you list the main contributor first, if you care about that
sort of thing. Otherwise, you can list them in any order.

> Both the Beatles and Geoff Emerick
> "contributed" to "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", for instance:
> 
>   
> 
> but one is clearly more significant than the other.

Sure - but what about this one:

http://music.yahoo.com/release/115057

Which one is more significant than the other - the label or the artist?
Are "creators" more important than "contributors"? These questions are
philosophical in nature - you can't assume that "creator" should be used
to note the significance of a contribution.

> There does seem to be a tendency in microformats, towards unduly low
> granularity; I find that strange.

Why do you find that strange? We're working with lowest common
denominator here. When you do that, you get low granularity.

> Although in classical music, the composer may be as-, or more-,
> prominent than the artist; likewise the conductor. Higher granularity
> would allow for such distinctions.

Sure - now all you have to do is find enough examples online, (we'll
need about 30 with the composer clearly denoted as well as the artist
with the composer more prominently displayed than the artist) for us to
make the argument for putting this feature into hAudio.

-- manu

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] haudio contributor

[Manu Sporny]

Alf Eaton wrote:
> It would work, but so would a number of very complicated things. My
> needs are essentially very simple:
> 
> Primal Scream - Screamadelica
> 
> so
> 
> Primal Scream -  class="album">Screamadelica

Why doesn't the following work for you, then?


   Primal Scream -
   Screamadelica


Per the hAudio spec, you have just marked up an album called
"Screamadelica", whose primary contributor (the artist) is "Primal Scream".

The example above is valid hAudio markup - is your issue with the word
"contributor" instead of "creator"?

> If there really "weren't enough examples that clearly listed anybody
> other than the creator", doesn't that make things easier?

Sorry, that was badly worded on my part. What I meant to express was:

There weren't enough examples that clearly showed that people were using
the word "artist", "label", not mentioning the role, or using
"publisher" more than the others. It was a mixed bag and what we saw at
the end was the chance to support all of these by using "contributor" in
the simple cases and contributor + hCard role in the complex cases.

None of this seems to be an issue with what you're trying to mark up,
though. If it is still an issue, could you please post some other data
that you're attempting to markup where the hAudio spec doesn't let you
mark it up in the way that you want to?

-- manu

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] haudio contributor

[Alf Eaton]

Manu Sporny wrote:

Alf Eaton wrote:

How about this:
* All "contributors" played a role in the creation of the audio.
* If there's one or more "creators", those entities played a primary role.


We looked at that approach, and found that we didn't have the examples
to back up the argument that we should make the distinction between
"creator" and "contributor" because there weren't enough examples that
clearly listed anybody other than the creator, and because hCard already
has a "role" field.

If you really want to make the distinction between a publisher, a
drummer, a singer, a technician, and someone else, you can always use an
hCard and utilize the "role" property[1].


But then I'm struggling to think of actual examples where your rule
wouldn't be enough (though having to list the main contributor at the
start of the list might be one problem). It just feels wrong not to be
able to explicitly mark the primary creator(s) when, as you say,
sometimes you do want to do just that.


You can do this using "role" in hCard when describing the contributor.
If this doesn't work for you, you can use hCard RDFa which does
differentiate between the primary creator(s) and contributors.


What if there are two primary creators (composer and performer, say) and
the rest are just auxiliary contributors?


You could mark up each primary creator's "role" using hCard to describe
each creator. You could not specify the auxiliary contributors' roles,
or you could specify them - it's up to you to determine how specific you
want to be.

Does that work for your needs?


It would work, but so would a number of very complicated things. My needs are 
essentially very simple:

Primal Scream - Screamadelica

so

Primal Scream - Screamadelica

is simpler than

Primal 
Scream - Screamadelica,

hence I like it.

If there really "weren't enough examples that clearly listed anybody other than the 
creator", doesn't that make things easier?

alf
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] haudio contributor

[Manu Sporny]

Alf Eaton wrote:
> How about this:
> * All "contributors" played a role in the creation of the audio.
> * If there's one or more "creators", those entities played a primary role.

We looked at that approach, and found that we didn't have the examples
to back up the argument that we should make the distinction between
"creator" and "contributor" because there weren't enough examples that
clearly listed anybody other than the creator, and because hCard already
has a "role" field.

If you really want to make the distinction between a publisher, a
drummer, a singer, a technician, and someone else, you can always use an
hCard and utilize the "role" property[1].

> But then I'm struggling to think of actual examples where your rule
> wouldn't be enough (though having to list the main contributor at the
> start of the list might be one problem). It just feels wrong not to be
> able to explicitly mark the primary creator(s) when, as you say,
> sometimes you do want to do just that.

You can do this using "role" in hCard when describing the contributor.
If this doesn't work for you, you can use hCard RDFa which does
differentiate between the primary creator(s) and contributors.

> What if there are two primary creators (composer and performer, say) and
> the rest are just auxiliary contributors?

You could mark up each primary creator's "role" using hCard to describe
each creator. You could not specify the auxiliary contributors' roles,
or you could specify them - it's up to you to determine how specific you
want to be.

Does that work for your needs?

-- manu

[1]http://microformats.org/wiki/haudio#Contributor

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] haudio contributor

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manu Sporny
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>Andy Mabbett wrote:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manu Sporny
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>
>>> If only one contributor is listed, it is assumed that he/she/it is also
>>> the creator of the hAudio. If multiple contributors are listed, it is
>>> assumed that the first contributor is the creator, and all subsequent
>>> contributors played supporting roles in the creation of the hAudio.
>>
>> That fails as soon as we want to mark up something like:
>>
>> Simon Rattle conducted the CBSO in a marvellous rendition of
>> Beethoven's Fifth
>
>Yes, the use of 'contributor' falls apart completely when we have markup
>like that... which is uncommon.

For some value of "uncommon".

>You should have noted that markup such as that is an edge case. Look at
>the audio-info-examples and you will be lucky if you find 1 or 2
>instances of the markup you describe above.

Perhaps, but why assume that the limited number and types of examples
are representative of all references to audio recordings?

>My point is that it is easy to manufacture words that break hAudio - but
>much harder to find actual examples online that break it.

It's not necessary to "manufacture" examples - I've already provided
real evidence, some weeks ago.

>If you have issues with this approach, you can always use hAudio RDFa,
>which does make the distinction between "dc:creator" and
>"dc:contributor". If you wanted to be even more specific, just include
>the Music Ontology vocabulary and mark it up using that.

I could do, but I'd rather help to get hAudio right; and further
microformats in general.

>>> Thus, it can be said:
>>>
>>> Not all contributors are creators.
>>> Not all contributors are artists.
>>
>> That can certainly be said. However, it cannot be expressed in hAudio
>> without requiring the publishers of such examples to re-order their
>> content. It is a microformats "principle" to not do so.
>
>For the publishers that need to re-order their content to mark up
>hAudio, they are obviously stretching what hAudio uF can do
[...]

Again, not according to the example I gave a while ago.


>We don't have enough examples to split "contributor" into "label",
>"publisher", "creator", and "artist" - which is what the examples showed
>to be the most prominently displayed contributors across the 93+ sites
>that we analyzed for hAudio.

Then we need more examples and realising that such examples may never be
sufficiently exhaustive, should treat them accordingly.

To paraphrase an old maxim:

the process should be for the guidance of wise men and the blind
obedience of fools

 It doesn't seem to be based on established practice, as from the
 overview it looks like existing markup overwhelming uses 'artist'.
 http://microformats.org/wiki/audio-info-brainstorming#artist
>>> If we used artist, we would not have been able to mark up publishers,
>>> composers, audio technicians, etc.
>>
>> If we used *only* 'artist', perhaps, but not if we used 'artist' *AND*
>> 'composer' + 'technician'.
>
>There aren't enough examples that list the composer or the technician to
>make the argument for adding those into hAudio.

If there are insufficient examples of "composer" being listed, that
itself is evidence that the examples are inadequate:







likewise for conductors:





and, (though I grant that technicians generally get less attention):




Consider also how to indicate a reference to a song performed by its
composer:

Bob Dylan

>You're more than welcome
>to go back through the audio-info-examples and re-analyze all of the
>sites to prove your point, though.

Why would I, when they're clearly inadequate?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] haudio contributor

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manu Sporny 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes



Why doesn't the following work for you, then?


  Primal Scream -
  Screamadelica


Per the hAudio spec, you have just marked up an album called
"Screamadelica", whose primary contributor (the artist) is "Primal Scream".

The example above is valid hAudio markup


I thought "fn" was required.

--
Andy Mabbett
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] haudio contributor

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alf Eaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes



If there really "weren't enough examples that clearly listed anybody
other than the creator", doesn't that make things easier?


All that makes easier for me is the confidence to say that the evidence 
is too limited.


--
Andy Mabbett
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] haudio contributor

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manu Sporny 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes


If you really want to make the distinction between a publisher, a 
drummer, a singer, a technician, and someone else, you can always use 
an hCard and utilize the "role" property


That presumes that the roles are exposed in the page; they may be if or, 
say a producer, but often using the verb ("produced by..."), and 
frequently are not, We don't need to say that Beethoven is a composer, 
when saying "Beethoven's fifth". That's clear to a human (well, mist 
humans of any western education!) from context; but not to a machine.


Before anyone cries "hidden metadata", how often to we explicitly say 
that "Mabbett" is my family name?, or that "21 High street" is a street 
address?


--
Andy Mabbett
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] haudio contributor

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manu Sporny
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>> I thought "fn" was required.
>
>It isn't:
>
>http://microformats.org/wiki/haudio#Album
>
>You MUST use either FN or ALBUM, or both.

Thank you. I've updated the cheatsheet:



to make that more clear.


>If you ONLY use FN - you are talking about an audio recording.
>If you ONLY use ALBUM - you are talking about an audio album.
>If you use BOTH FN and ALBUM - you are talking about an audio recording
>from the specified audio album.

In that case, perhaps "track" rather than "title" is the more
appropriate label to replace "FN"?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] haudio contributor

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andy Mabbett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>If there are insufficient examples of "composer" being listed, that
>itself is evidence that the examples are inadequate:

More to consider here:



(also an excellent place for genuinely free mp3s!)

-- 
Andy Mabbett
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] haudio contributor

[Manu Sporny]

Andy Mabbett wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manu Sporny
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> 
>> Why doesn't the following work for you, then?
>>
>> 
>>   Primal Scream -
>>   Screamadelica
>> 
>>
>> Per the hAudio spec, you have just marked up an album called
>> "Screamadelica", whose primary contributor (the artist) is "Primal
>> Scream".
>>
>> The example above is valid hAudio markup
> 
> I thought "fn" was required.

It isn't:

http://microformats.org/wiki/haudio#Album

You MUST use either FN or ALBUM, or both. In other words:

If you ONLY use FN - you are talking about an audio recording.
If you ONLY use ALBUM - you are talking about an audio album.
If you use BOTH FN and ALBUM - you are talking about an audio recording
from the specified audio album.

-- manu

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] haudio contributor

[Guillaume Lebleu]

Andy Mabbett wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manu Sporny 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes


If you really want to make the distinction between a publisher, a 
drummer, a singer, a technician, and someone else, you can always use 
an hCard and utilize the "role" property


That presumes that the roles are exposed in the page; they may be if 
or, say a producer, but often using the verb ("produced by..."), and 
frequently are not, We don't need to say that Beethoven is a composer, 
when saying "Beethoven's fifth". That's clear to a human (well, mist 
humans of any western education!) from context; but not to a machine.


Before anyone cries "hidden metadata", how often to we explicitly say 
that "Mabbett" is my family name?, or that "21 High street" is a 
street address?



I agree with others that these are edge cases for microformats.

I don't think you are correct when you say that only a human can infer 
Beethoven--(composerOf)-->fifth, from "Beethoven's fifth". As far as 
I've seen in other more lucrative domains than music, a well-trained 
semantic software extractor working off sufficient content, plain old 
grammatically-correct english and music metadata would do that job with 
less sweat than an editor will take to write the content and mark it up 
in hAudio or something else (not to say to come up with the markup that 
works in these edge cases in the first place). Grammatically-correct 
english IS semantic markup, in a way.


I think microformats' sweet spot is easing semantic extraction in cases 
where the level of structure is high, and the plain english context is 
low. The back of an album that lists tracks is such a case, its entry in 
Gracenote, a list of friends, electronic business cards, etc. are good 
examples as well. A plain english critics' review of an album on the 
other hand with lots of context, but little structure is a case that is 
economically much better handled using semantic analysis than with "$1M 
markup".


I'm not saying that microformats should not try to make formats that 
work with plain old English or natural language (I've been trying 
myself), I'm just saying that we may consider the fact that the ROI will 
most likely be low and other technologies will compete better there, so 
we might just focus our time on where we have the biggest chance of 
straightforward adoption, then only look at solving the plain english 
cases, instead of trying to solve everything at once.


Guillaume
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss