[uf-new] Microformat for Music Downloads

Manu Sporny msporny at digitalbazaar.com
Wed Apr 4 08:26:00 PDT 2007

Martin McEvoy wrote:
> To answer Marian's question do we need a "Microformat for Music
> Downloads" I would say no there are enough existing Microformats to do
> the job. I might suggest that we add extra properties to the hReview
> Microformat to include, artist, and object.


If the only fields that we have to contend with are artist and object, I
would agree with you. However, if you take a look at the types of fields
that we are dealing with for music:


It starts to become evident that semantically describing music is much
different that describing feeds (hAtom) and reviews (hReview). hAtom is
for feeds, which music items are usually not. hReview is for single
reviews - usually there is always more than one comment on a page
regarding an album (there are multiple hReviews per music item).

In the very least, we need to consider the following:

For albums:
artist, title, tracks, release date, label, genre, web-based purchase,
cover image

For songs:
artist, title, release date, label, genre, web-based purchase, cover
image, track number, sample link, price, length

Analysis of over 85 music sites have shown that those are the norm - and
I can't see them fitting neatly into hAtom or hReview. Can anybody think
of any combination of existing Microformat mappings that would work for
the fields listed above?

-- manu

More information about the microformats-new mailing list