[uf-discuss] haudio contributor
andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Sun Feb 3 12:26:54 PST 2008
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
Simon Rattle conducted a marvellous rendition of Ma Vlast
EMI are pleased to announce a new downloadable version of the
Beatles' 'Sgt Pepper...'
EMI are pleased to announce a new downloadable version of 'Sgt
>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'.
>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'.
More information about the microformats-discuss