[uf-discuss] haudio contributor

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <47A60E74.5080209 at digitalbazaar.com>, Manu Sporny
<msporny at digitalbazaar.com> 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

or:

        Simon Rattle conducted a marvellous rendition of Ma Vlast

or:

        EMI are pleased to announce a new downloadable version of the
        Beatles' 'Sgt Pepper...'

or:

        EMI are pleased to announce a new downloadable version of 'Sgt
        Pepper...'

>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.

>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.

>> 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'.

-- 
Andy Mabbett