[uf-new] hAudio - audio-album and audio-podcast

[Manu Sporny]

Brian Suda wrote:
> --- firstly, microformats are not a "how should we do this" it is more
> of a "how are things already being done?"

Option #2 is how it is already being done. The options were more about
if we wanted to generalize the scope of the hAudio Microformat. It was
to see if anybody had a preference and why...

> Your use of audio-album could cause problems later in the semantic
> meaning, iTunes has many celebrity playlists, which are not actually
> ALBUMS, but are a collection of related songs. The term podcast seems
> very 2005, in 4 years will we still use 'podcats' maybe, maybe not?

We're not concerned with what might happen in the future. We're
concerned with what's already there - the cow paths. The two major types
of grouping in the audio-examples are podcasts and albums.

> What ever happened to working on the media-format? 

The media-format was far too broad of a problem - that's why it hasn't
moved forward in two years even though there are a great number of
examples of marking up media on the web. It is far easier to break the
problem up into audio, video and images and tackle those individually:

http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-April/000143.html

In the end we might come up with a grand Microformat that covers audio,
video and images. Although, even that goes against some of the concepts
of Microformats - solving simple problems, defining simple Microformats,
etc.

> this seems like a
> similar problem to DVD chapters, and other multi-media issues?

Those are different problems - we aren't addressing those problems with
this Microformat. We have a very specific problem statement for audio-info:

http://microformats.org/wiki/audio-info-examples#The_Problem

We should stick to the small problem and solve that - not make it bigger
and more complicated (boiling the oceans).

> I would also prefer that these property names NOT be hypenated. Why
> not just use something like: media/track? then you could use 'track'
> independantly of album/media, and album/media potentially independant
> of track? for instance, discographies/videographies/DVD, that lists
> just albums and films.

Could you expand on this idea please? I want to make sure I understand
you correctly. I'm fine with the concept of non-hyphenated names, are
you suggesting something along the lines of:

album
   description
      haudio
   track
      haudio
   track
      haudio

> Last i remember the hAudio proposal basically broke down to just an
> hReview with a price and a running time.

The semantics of audio-info are very different from the semantics of a
review. The following are required for audio info (based on the analysis
and brainstorming done by this list): fn, contributor, published-date,
rel-sample (samples), rel-enclosure (full versions), rel-payment
(purchase option), image-summary, category, duration, and price - hardly
any of those overlap with hReview.

-- manu