Re: [uf-new] hAudio ISSUE #8: hAlbum is redundant
Martin McEvoy wrote: > so why all the votes for adding these class names ? > > http://microformats.org/wiki/audio-info-issues#Collection_Names Looks like I was getting ahead of myself :) - I have removed my votes for CHART and PLAYLIST. I still support ALBUM, PODCAST and TRACK, though. > http://microformats.org/wiki/item-brainstorming We can't use item :(, it is limited to using a small set of class names that have almost nothing in common with hAudio [1]: """ As a microformat, this is very much analogous to hCard and we shall reuse all applicable attributes: * fn - the name of an item * url - the web address of an item * photo - a photo of an item * adr - the address of an item (for example, a house) * geo - likewise """ > haudio > haudio-title > item > media-title Let's look at an example using your proposal: ...listening to May the Rain found on Paper Tigers by... With the album-keyword-based proposal, here's the markup: ...listening to May the Rain found on Paper Tigers by... with the haudio-title-based proposal, here's how we would do that: ...listening to May the Rain found on Paper Tigers by... The haudio-title-based proposal has the following issues compared to the album-keyword-based proposal: - It is more verbose, requiring publishers to write more HTML. - It requires hAudio nesting to mark up a simple song and album example. - You cannot differentiate an album from a podcast. What about using SECTION instead of TRACK? It could be used in hVideo and hAudio. SECTION makes sense for albums, podcasts, clips, television, movies... but doesn't really work for charts or playlists. -- manu [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/item-brainstorming#Notes ___ microformats-new mailing list microformats-new@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
Re: [uf-new] hAudio ISSUE #8: hAlbum is redundant
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 10:46 -0400, Manu Sporny wrote: > Martin McEvoy wrote: > > I am not trying to be too simplistic here but I hope you can see what I > > am trying to say, > > I don't think I see everything that you're trying to say, Martin... but > I'll try to summarize what I think you are saying: > > I think you're making an argument for not bloating hAudio by adding too > many new class names. I was...! > > I think you think that I'm making an argument for adding album, toplist, > podcast, playlist, and others. I am definitely not making this argument, > although reading back through the thread, I can see how it might be > construed that I am proposing adding a 5-7 new class names to hAudio. > You are not!!... so why all the votes for adding these class names ? http://microformats.org/wiki/audio-info-issues#Collection_Names sorry I vote for none :( hAudio is the container class if we we make hAlbum redundant which I am in strong favour of. haudio haudio-title track media-title I use haudio-title here to say that this is our main haudio title and we have been forbidden talk about just *title* because of its conflicts with the title attribute in hCard. and media-title is a generic name for what we are trying to describe. Personally I don't like the use of Track either when there already is something that describes our need if we use *item* from the item-brainstorming page. http://microformats.org/wiki/item-brainstorming haudio haudio-title item media-title this coupled with the addition of a description, or note as Andy has been in favour of haudio haudio-title description item media-title description can be reused from xFolk http://microformats.org/wiki/xfolk and I would say we have got something worth shouting about. > This thread started by trying to eliminate the hAlbum proposal. I think > we should still do that, the question is... how do we eliminate hAlbum, > but keep the functionality of hAlbum? > > > If we bloat haudio in the ways you and others are suggesting then the > > actual use of hAudio (in my opinion) will be very slow indeed. > > I don't think any of us want to bloat hAudio. Right now, I am proposing > adding two things to hAudio in order to eliminate hAlbum: > > ALBUM and TRACK > > -- manu Thanks Martin > > ___ > microformats-new mailing list > microformats-new@microformats.org > http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new ___ microformats-new mailing list microformats-new@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
Re: [uf-new] hAudio ISSUE #8: hAlbum is redundant
Chris Newell wrote: > If there is a single, generic collection-title field > could you use the "type" and "value" construction to > achieve this? > > For example: > > > Album: > Sticky Fingers > I tried to find examples that would support a proposal for adding TYPE to hAudio several months ago, but what I found was that most service sites and individual sites don't specify whether something is an album, audio recording or podcast. For example: http://www.digirama.co.nz/albumdetails.aspx?MediaID=335907 The above example, which is representative of the rest of the music service examples, does not specify the type at all... however, it is implied by the web page as an album. In the off-chance that they do specify it, a variety of language to specify the same thing: album: album, CD, CD Release, EP, LP, hit, collection, record song : song, hit, recording podcast: podcast, audio blog, mp3 blog If we let somebody put anything into the type field, it will be difficult for parsers and software to determine the type... even if we could convince publishers to start stating "album" or "podcast" or "recording" in their HTML (which they aren't doing now). We're attempting to capture semantics in the examples. There is an implicit statement that an album, song or podcast exists... but there is NOT an explicit statement about the same. -- manu ___ microformats-new mailing list microformats-new@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
Re: [uf-new] hAudio ISSUE #8: hAlbum is redundant
Scott Reynen wrote: >> If we do that, we will lose the ability to differentiate between an >> album, podcast, toplist, download, and chart. > > Can you explain a bit more what exactly we gain with that ability, in > terms of practical capabilities? Here is the premise: It is important to be able to differentiate between types of audio collections. At least three different types of audio are backed up by the audio-info-examples: audio recordings, audio albums and audio podcasts. Here are our goals: - Eliminate hAlbum, but support its functionality in hAudio. - Add as little as possible to hAudio to support audio collections. This thread has been split into three issues: hAudio ISSUE #8: http://microformats.org/wiki/audio-info-issues#Problem:_hAlbum_is_redundant hAudio ISSUE #9: http://microformats.org/wiki/audio-info-issues#album-title_Property hAudio ISSUE #10: http://microformats.org/wiki/audio-info-issues#Collection_Names We should continue to talk about ISSUE #8 in this thread. ISSUE #9 and ISSUE #10 are in regard to what we call these new classes. What we name these new classes should be in a different thread of conversation and should happen after we decide what to do with hAlbum. Issue 9 and 10 become rather easy decisions if we decide not to go forward with the proposed solution to issue 8. > How would a hypothetical application > treat two documents differently if they were otherwise identical, but > one said "album-title" and the other "podcast-title"? Here are the parsing rules. I will use the existing hAudio terms (audio-title, album-title) in an attempt to not confuse this issue with issue #9 or issue #10: * If only 'album-title' is specified, then the hAudio is an album. * If only 'audio-title' is specified, then the hAudio is a song/speech or other singular work. * If both 'album-title' and 'audio-title' is specified, then the hAudio is a song that is part of an album. * If 'album-title' and one or more 'track's are specified, the hAudio is an album containing tracks. Each track is an hAudio. None of the track properties should be added to the hAudio album. In other words, the parser shouldn't parse the contents of the TRACK hAudio into the non-track hAudio object, TRACK operates similarly to the 'mfo' proposal[1]. The issue is that of semantics. None of the examples explicitly state this is an "album" or this is a "track", however, they implicitly state this fact. This is the reason putting a TYPE class into hAudio doesn't make sense. Only a few of the examples ever explicitly state that they're talking about an album, a single recording or a podcast. It is implied by the context in the page. Since Microformats do not allow hidden data, we can't propose the use of TYPE - there is no text on the page to mark up even if we did use TYPE. Thus, in order to get the concept of an album, a single audio recording, or a track across we must figure out a clever way to imply these semantics without having the publisher explicitly state "this is an album" in their HTML. The current proposal is an attempt to imply the type of the hAudio without requiring the publisher to put "album" in their HTML. For software, it is important to know the semantic difference between an audio recording, an album, and a podcast. For example - it could determine which search service you use to find more information about the recording, album or podcast. On Bitmunk, our REST XML Web API allows one to specify whether the title that you're sending it is an album, or a song. The results you get back can be heavily dependent on the type of media that you're sending it. Another use case is for the Operator plug-in. How you display an album, a podcast, and a single song to a user could (and probably would) use a slightly different UI layout. It is not enough just to call something an audio object and be done with it. The type of audio object has a great deal of semantic meaning to human beings, and that is what we're trying to encapsulate with this proposal. > Everything else, I thought, was determined to be out of scope. You > previously wrote [1]: > >> There are only two things that are strongly supported by the >> audio-info-examples right now. Audio albums and audio podcasts >> (collections of audio). > > Has that since changed? Not, it has not and it should not... it seems that I've done a bad job of explaining that. :) By bringing up podcast-title and toplist-title, I was attempting to outline how we would go about naming these other "types" of hAudio. I was attempting to demonstrate that this naming mechanism and approach scales well. We don't end up with a Microformat for each type, we just end up with the lesser of two evils, one more class in hAudio. At the very least, we're talking about adding the following to hAudio: album-title track Does that help clarify hAudio ISSUE #8? -- manu [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/mfo
Re: [uf-new] hAudio ISSUE #8: hAlbum is redundant
Martin McEvoy wrote: > I am not trying to be too simplistic here but I hope you can see what I > am trying to say, I don't think I see everything that you're trying to say, Martin... but I'll try to summarize what I think you are saying: I think you're making an argument for not bloating hAudio by adding too many new class names. I think you think that I'm making an argument for adding album, toplist, podcast, playlist, and others. I am definitely not making this argument, although reading back through the thread, I can see how it might be construed that I am proposing adding a 5-7 new class names to hAudio. This thread started by trying to eliminate the hAlbum proposal. I think we should still do that, the question is... how do we eliminate hAlbum, but keep the functionality of hAlbum? > If we bloat haudio in the ways you and others are suggesting then the > actual use of hAudio (in my opinion) will be very slow indeed. I don't think any of us want to bloat hAudio. Right now, I am proposing adding two things to hAudio in order to eliminate hAlbum: ALBUM and TRACK -- manu ___ microformats-new mailing list microformats-new@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
Subject: Re: [uf-new] hAudio ISSUE #8: hAlbum is redundant
>Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:58:36 -0400 >From: Manu Sporny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [uf-new] hAudio ISSUE #8: hAlbum is redundant >To: "For discussion of new microformats." > >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >Martin McEvoy wrote: >> I vote we use something more generic and call audio-title, album-title >> or in fact any media related title just "media-title", you can re-use it >> for albums, podcasts, toplists, downloads, charts, video, images. > >Martin, > >If we do that, we will lose the ability to differentiate between an >album, podcast, toplist, download, and chart. These are differentiations >that we need to make because of the examples discovered thus far. Manu, If there is a single, generic collection-title field could you use the "type" and "value" construction to achieve this? For example: Album: Sticky Fingers Chris ___ microformats-new mailing list microformats-new@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
Re: [uf-new] The Process (was: hAudio case study)
On 9/13/07 1:10 AM, "Andy Mabbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tantek Çelik > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >> "Document the implicit schemas that the content examples imply." >> >> Every word in that sentence matters. > > On the contrary: "implicit" is redundant. Quite. > The alternative: > > "Document the schemas implied by the content examples." > > reads better. Agreed. Updated process page. Thanks! Tantek ___ microformats-new mailing list microformats-new@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
Re: [uf-new] hAudio ISSUE #8: hAlbum is redundant
>Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:11:38 +0100 >From: Martin McEvoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [uf-new] hAudio ISSUE #8: hAlbum is redundant >To: "For discussion of new microformats." > >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain > >If we bloat haudio in the ways you and others are suggesting then the >actual use of hAudio (in my opinion) will be very slow indeed. >I do not think hAudio will benefit from any such use of podcast-title, >toplist-title, album-title or any derivative there-of. I don't think having a single "collection-title" field would bloat the spec. Something generic like "parent" would do. The tendency to aggregate music into collections is too strong to ignore. Chris ___ microformats-new mailing list microformats-new@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
Re: [uf-new] The Process (was: hAudio case study)
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tantek Çelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >"Document the implicit schemas that the content examples imply." > >Every word in that sentence matters. On the contrary: "implicit" is redundant. The alternative: "Document the schemas implied by the content examples." reads better. -- Andy Mabbett ___ microformats-new mailing list microformats-new@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
