[uf-new] item property (was: hAudio: audio-title/album-title vs. recording/album)

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <2D84A83F-CA01-46AA-93BA-3FB10AF12DFF at code404.com>, Justin 
Maxwell <soc at code404.com> writes

>On Oct 14, 2007, at 12:10 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
>> What do you mean by "there is no 'track' in data"?
>>
>> I thought we created microformats by looking at evidence, not
>> considering personal opinions and supposition about what may be
>> understood at dome unknown point in the future.

>and i thought i was helping define a microformat, not practicing my 
>skill in public debate.  so, we're even. :)

Given that this is a debate, carried out in public, I can't see why you 
were under the misapprehension that you're not doing both.

>moving on...
>
>"there is no 'track' in data."  I wrote that thinking it was self- 
>explanatory and obvious, so, sorry if it seemed too abstract.  a 
>"track" refers to a physically demonstrable "track" in a recording 
>medium, whether that track is a set of continuous grooves divided by 
>physical markers, or a series of sectors on a CD/DVD divided by start 
>and end markers.  In short, "track" is a term reserved for physical, 
>tangible media.

And now used to refer to a song or other piece of music. We're concerned 
with current usage, not etymology.

>> If people refer to a songs or other recording as a "track" - as the
>> evidence [1] shows they do - then we should use that.
>>
>> [1] -   <http://tinyurl.com/yvekd2>
>>         <http://tinyurl.com/ywg8qu>
>>         <http://tinyurl.com/2kq96z>
>
>good point!  however, people also refer to items as "songs,"

Some tracks are songs, others are not. All songs, though, are tracks.

> but a  google search on "'spoken word' songs" (and similar variations 
>of non- musical recorded genres, such as "audiobook +songs") gives 
>evidence  that popular usage is incorrect as well.

I don't see what it is, that leads you to that conclusion.

>  So it's easy to find  evidence of people using both "track" and 
>"song," but neither are  correct.  If we have the opportunity to define 
>a standard, why not go  with one -- "item" -- that is universally 
>correct?

Because it's semantically barren.

-- 
Andy Mabbett