[uf-new] title vs. summary (was: Third attempt at hAudio)

[Martin McEvoy]

On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 18:00 -0700, Joe Andrieu wrote:
> 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
> > > 
> [snip]
> > > 
> > > 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
> Joe".
> 

You dont think  "Beethoven's Ninth Sympony" is a summary of the actual
symphony? or that "Hey Joe" is a summary of "Hey Joe, where you goin'
with that gun in your hand"?

lets try to think of meaning here not generic terms

> > 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 
> > 
> > http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-classes
> > 
> > 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.

no we are not, even now we are addressing the same problem

> 
> Can you summarize why work-title was problematic?

we were re-defining the meaning of title to mean something different. 
Title has already been defined in vCard to mean "To specify the job
title, functional position or function of the object the vCard
represents" section 3.5.1 of RFC 2426
http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/rfc/rfc2426.html 
there is nothing much we can do about this.


The full discussion can be read here:

http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-May/000342.html

A question I might ask Is just because we *can* create a new microformat
do you think we *should*? especially when we already have a microformat
that means the same thing? summary from hReview

http://microformats.org/wiki/hreview#Field_details

and do you think that by creating a new microformat, that we would
increase the cognitive load of any future adapters of a microformat, we
do want people to use hAudio and understand it don't we?

the use of titles especially if you are talking about titles of audio is
misleading in itself, you have titles of albums and titles of tracks,
they both don't mean the same thing although they use the same words.

If we created a microformat that relies on the use of a title in every
single instance eg:

haudio audio-title Blonde on Blonde
haudio audio-title 1 Rainy Day Women #12 & 35 
haudio audio-title 2 Pledging My Time 
haudio audio-title 3 Visions of Johanna 
[etc...]

now can you see how misleading this is two contexts meaning the same
thing but entirely different objects.

I would say if you are going to use a *.-title in any microformat it has
to be the defining instance of the object you are trying to describe,
and not reused again to define another different object within the same
microformat or reused somewhere else to mean another different object.
what sense would there be in that?

-martin-

> 
> -j
> 
> p.s.
> (btw, I agree FN is a bit confusing)
> 
> --
> Joe Andrieu
> SwitchBook Software
> http://www.switchbook.com
> joe at switchbook.com
> +1 (805) 705-8651 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 2171 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/attachments/20070608/0c820ac3/smime.bin