[uf-discuss] haudio contributor

[Manu Sporny]

Andy Mabbett wrote:
> 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

Yes, the use of 'contributor' falls apart completely when we have markup
like that... which is uncommon.

You should have noted that markup such as that is an edge case. Look at
the audio-info-examples and you will be lucky if you find 1 or 2
instances of the markup you describe above.

My point is that it is easy to manufacture words that break hAudio - but
much harder to find actual examples online that break it.

If you have issues with this approach, you can always use hAudio RDFa,
which does make the distinction between "dc:creator" and
"dc:contributor". If you wanted to be even more specific, just include
the Music Ontology vocabulary and mark it up using that.

>> 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.

For the publishers that need to re-order their content to mark up
hAudio, they are obviously stretching what hAudio uF can do, and should
use hAudio RDFa.

>> 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.

Then does doing this support my conclusion:

*waves hands wildly in the air*

=P

More seriously:

We don't have enough examples to split "contributor" into "label",
"publisher", "creator", and "artist" - which is what the examples showed
to be the most prominently displayed contributors across the 93+ sites
that we analyzed for hAudio.

>>> 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'.

There aren't enough examples that list the composer or the technician to
make the argument for adding those into hAudio. You're more than welcome
to go back through the audio-info-examples and re-analyze all of the
sites to prove your point, though.

-- manu