[uf-new] hAlbum concerns

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <9626F0E7-2972-44B6-BA77-B0C2E3048FD4 at code404.com>, Justin 
Maxwell <soc at code404.com> writes

>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?

Yes; it seems sensible to re-use field names form exiting and relevant 
schema.

>>>> 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

Fair enough - but as international standards, they're available and we 
should take heed of them.

>Type/value would certainly be a good solution (I see you've mentioned 
>that before in the archives...just catching up now...

My memory..!

>I disagree that  the URL of a downloadable file would be a sufficient 
>unique identifier)

There's a one-to-many relationship, which can be problematic, if you nee 
to know whether two URLs refer to the same, or a different recording/ 
composition. To a lesser degree, though the same can be said for ISBN.

Conversely, some record companies have been known to use the same 
catalogue number for two different recording of the same track.

>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>

Technically, perhaps, but be aware of the accessibility concerns about 
"abbr":

  <http://microformats.org/wiki/accessibility-issues#abbr-design-pattern>

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

We all start somewhere...

-- 
Andy Mabbett