[uf-discuss] haudio contributor
andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Thu Feb 7 10:03:43 PST 2008
On Thu, February 7, 2008 15:37, Scott Reynen wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2008, at 4:59 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>>> If it's just a generic contact that you know nothing about, I'd say
>>> just use fn, as adding org is potentially incorrect information. But if
>>> you know it's a music act, I think it makes sense to consider even an
>>> individual performer's name to be an organization name in that
>>> context. I'd say there's
>>> a difference, for example, between Norah Jones the person, who would be
>>> <span class="fn">Norah Jones</span>, and Norah Jones the musical
>>> act, which would be <span class="fn org">Norah Jones</span>. </snip>
>> That strikes me as no more sensible now than it did then. If I cite
>> her, as "Norah Jones said", am I referring to her as a person, or an
> Note I started that suggestion with "if it's just a generic contact
> that you know nothing about..."
Which you then followed with "But if you know it's a music act"
> So in that context, there's no possible
> answer to your questions. I wasn't suggesting we treat all musicians as
> organizations when we *do* know they're individuals, just that our default
> assumption of musical acts is that they're organizations.
If you mean that in the context of "a musical act, where the publisher
doesn't know whether that's a person or a group", then I agree that that
would be the better default (in that no third, more ambiguous, distinction
is yet available); but I don't think that that is how others are
representing your suggestion.
** via webmail **
More information about the microformats-discuss