[uf-new] Microformat for Music Downloads

Scott Reynen scott at makedatamakesense.com
Wed Apr 4 09:58:33 PDT 2007

On Apr 4, 2007, at 10:26 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:

> Martin,
> 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:
> http://microformats.org/wiki/media-info- 
> examples#Analysis_of_Music_Sites

I think Martin was talking about this problem:


Which is much simpler than the media info problem:


> 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.

hAtom is not only for feeds; it's for "practically any other place  
Atom may be used," and feeds are only the most prominent example of  
that.  hAtom contains a title, description, and item for download,  
which is very close to what's needed for music downloads.

> Analysis of over 85 music sites have shown that those are the norm

Many of the sites you surveyed don't have audio downloads available,  
so while they may be relevant to the media-info work, they're outside  
the scope of music downloads.

> - 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?

I think media-info will likely need a new format, as it's relatively  
broad in scope.  But music downloads is a simpler problem, and I  
think Martin did a great job of demonstrating that we can solve most  
of it with existing microformats.

Scott Reynen

More information about the microformats-new mailing list