[uf-new] title vs. summary (was: Third attempt at hAudio)
joe at andrieu.net
Thu Jun 7 18:00:48 PDT 2007
Martin McEvoy wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 15:40 -0700, Joe Andrieu wrote:
> > I would like to suggest "audio-title".
> > "title" itself is already defined elsewhere, in an incompatible way.
> > "summary" is inaccurate. Many titles are not summaries in
> any sense of
> > the word:
> > "Hey Joe" - Jimi Hendrix
> > "Beethoven's Ninth Sympony" - Beethoven
> > "Rainy Day Women #12 and 35" - Bob Dylan
> > "The Start Spangled Banner" - Francis Scott Key
> > Most artistic media, books, movies, poems, songs, and
> albums, on the
> > other hand, have titles that are artistic expressions themselves.
> > -j
> I am presuming that the reason we have entry-title in hAtom
> and not title is because title had already been defined in
> vcard to mean something else, but there was compelling
> evidence to support a title of a different meaning?
I can't speak to that, but it makes sense.
> The evidence to support that we need a title in hAudio is at
> first quite compelling also, but I don't think it applies to
> an individual audio. I think an individual audio has artistic
> properties but also that the title is a summary of the whole
> audio, you gave four good examples of this in your statement.
Most individual audio in the examples are songs. Songs have titles. The four examples above are NOT summaries. I don't know how one
could consider "Beethoven's Ninth Sympony" or "Rainy Day Women #12 and 35" summaries. The summary for "Hey Joe" could be "A blues
song where the singer kills Joe for sleeping with his woman, then flees to Mexico." But the /title/ of the song is clearly "Hey
> we gave an image related to hAudio a tag of image-summary
> which also has artistic properties but is a summary of an
> entire album or an actual CD cover.
> I suggested changing fn to summary because FN was confusing
> people, and there are still a lot of people in the real world
> wrongly misunderstanding its meaning as Full Name, and I also
> wanted something that meant the same thing but was also
> re-using existing microformats as per the process, and
> summary has an already rich semantic meaning so I thought
> this would make this easy (hmmm)
> A last thought, If we use audio-title or any other derivative
> are we in danger of reiterating the previous problem
> discussions we had with work-title?
I hope not. Title is the word used in every day English and since we are talking about an audio piece in particular, I think we are
free from some of the work-title concerns.
Can you summarize why work-title was problematic?
(btw, I agree FN is a bit confusing)
joe at switchbook.com
+1 (805) 705-8651
More information about the microformats-new