[uf-discuss] haudio contributor

[Alf Eaton]

Manu Sporny wrote:
> Alf Eaton wrote:
>> I was looking at using haudio today, but stumbled on the 'contributor'
>> field: is there a reason it's 'contributor' rather than 'creator', even
>> for the main creator (artist, in music) of the piece of audio?
> 
> We decided to not use "creator" because it would not be the proper
> semantic word for say, a publisher, or a composer. Most of the examples
> that we came across listed the publisher as well as the band that
> created the musical piece (CD). However, calling the publisher a
> "creator" would not be semantically correct.
> 
> Dublin core makes this differentiation. There is a dc:creator field,
> which is a narrower concept from dc:contributor. Microformats try to use
> the most common subset of information among all examples. Some had
> "artist", some had "publisher", some had "label", others had "band" -
> these are all contributors.
> 
> hAudio allows for listing multiple contributors.
> 
> 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.

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.

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.

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

alf