[uf-new] hAlbum concerns

[Justin Maxwell]

On Aug 30, 2007, at 8:22 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:

>> and class="position" for the track number.
>
> What do you do for the tracks on the second or subsequent disc of a
> multi-disc set?

Good question!  For vinyl (double-sided), I've been using A1, A2, B1,  
B2, etc., but that doesn't seem scalable.  I just did a bit of  
research and found this:

http://atomicparsley.sourceforge.net/mpeg-4files.html

Based on the data here, I'd propose changing "position" to  
"track_number", and using "disk_number" for multi-disc sets.  Do you  
think that would work?

>>> We should also be careful to distinguish /types/ of identifier
>>> (catalogue number, UID, ISBN, Amazon-ASIN, etc.)
>>
>> Since those other than catalogue number are proprietary
>> identification methods, i.e., identifers for external systems, the  
>> role of
>> "identifier" should go to the primary source, the record
>> label or publisher.
>
> ISBN is not "proprietary", neither are "International Standard  
> Music Number:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Music_Number>
> and the other, related identifiers listed at the foot of that page.
> Perhaps we need type/ value pairs for them?

"Proprietary," as in "something owned, trademarked, registered, or  
protected."  ISO developed ISBN and ISMN, so I believe those formats  
would be considered proprietary to ISO.  But I don't mean to bicker  
for the sake of argument -- I'm trying to differentiate between the  
arbitrary primary identifier, closest to the source of creation and  
publication, the catalog number, and an additional source of  
identification into an external system, ISBN/ISMN.  I hope that makes  
sense!  Might not be tremendously important, though.

Type/value would certainly be a good solution (I see you've mentioned  
that before in the archives...just catching up now...I disagree that  
the URL of a downloadable file would be a sufficient unique identifier)

So, having browsed http://microformats.org/wiki/uid-brainstorming,  
I'd like to know if you think that the previously-proposed abbr  
format would work?

<abbr class="uid" title="urn:ismn:555555">5 555 55</abbr>
<abbr class="uid" title="catalog">DTR008</abbr>

I realize I'm rehashing a conversation that already came and went in  
June, but I'm new to the list.

Thanks,
Justin