[uf-discuss] Ufs on bbc.co.uk/music

Michael Smethurst Michael.Smethurst at bbc.co.uk
Thu Jul 5 06:18:35 PDT 2007

On 5/7/07 13:37, "Paul Wilkins" <paul_wilkins at xtra.co.nz> wrote:

> Michael Smethurst wrote:
>> Seem to remember at the time I asked what the line of demarcation would be
>> between people as people and people as organisations. Are you just saying
>> music artists? What about actors, politicians, bloggers? Music artists who
>> act? Actors who become politicians? Politicians who blog?
>> Feels like you're splitting the world into 2 camps: celebrities and others.
>> Unless it's clearer what the logic is going on here I'm not happy to do this
> You have three ways of formatting a name for use in an address book.
> 1. n (family-name, given-name, additional-name, honorific-prefix,
> honorific-suffix)
> Where you can mark up the explicit parts of the name with the above
> class names.
> See http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard#Property_List
> 2. fn n
> Where the name can be guaranteed to be one of the defined formatted name
> structures
>  * given-name (space) family-name
>  * family-name (comma) given-name
>  * family-name (comma) given-name-first-initial
>  * family-name (space) given-name-first-initial (optional period)
> See http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard#Implied_.22n.22_Optimization
> 3. fn org
> Where it is the name of not necessarily a person, but of an organisation
> with a varied naming structure.
> http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard#Organization_Contact_Info
> There is a clear demarcation line here.


But that wasn't the demarcation line I was talking about - I meant when does
a person become an organisation? Is it a function of production or fame or
what? If Bob Dylan is considered an organisation why not Bill Clinton?
> If you can guarantee that the name will be given as family-name,
> given-name, etc... then Option 1 is used.

I can't

> If you can at least guarantee the the name will be valid as a formatted
> name, then Option2 is used.

Again I can't

> If neither of those two can be guaranteed, you're left with Option 3 or
> nothing.
> There is a strong case for considering artist names as their
> organisational name. Their names are widely varying, and often have
> nothing to do with the persons individual name itself.

For now I disagree. Again if you could tell me when and why a person
qualifies to be considered as an organisation I might be persuaded. But
without rules anyone might be marked up as org. I'll remove them for the
next code deploy and re-title this thread "lack of ufs on bbc.co.uk/music"

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list