[uf-new] PROPOSAL: Replace hAudio FN with TITLE

[Martin McEvoy]

On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 13:37 +0000, Brian Suda wrote: 
> 2008/2/12, Martin McEvoy <info at weborganics.co.uk>:
> > On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 07:33 +0000, Brian Suda wrote:
> > > --- WOW, after 6 days we have made a community wide change effecting 3
> > > years of effort with only 4 people weighing in! I am sorry i haven't
> > > been timely enough to offer my thoughts.
> 
> --- i volunteer with the community and have not have much time in the
> last 6 days to properly give it the thought and discussions it
> deserves. I would rather send a single email, then several continual
> ones. Everyone benefits from a long hard thing rather than "shooting
> from the hip" sorts of emails.

We all volunteer our time here, I apologize if my email seemed like it
was "shooting from the hip" it was never intended that way.

> 
> > as usual in this community If someone sees something they DON'T like
> > they just ignore it and hope it will go away.
> 
> --- i would disagree. There are several reasons people do not answer.
> Maybe it was covered by someone else, maybe they are busy, maybe they
> personally are not interested.

fair comment...

> 
> > Only when things change do people jump up and down and say how wrong it
> > is! usually without offering any reasons why or any alternatives.
> 
> --- this is certainly not the first time this discussion has come-up.
> I know i have personally had a long phone call with Manu about hAudio
> and several aspects of it.
> 
> I would and do not jump up and down for every change, only ones which
> i feel are bad choices. People are pretty fatigued from having this
> debate over and over again without gaining any ground.

which means it needs to be addressed not ignored as it has.

> 
> The alternatives which have been discussed before are, do nothing and
> use FN or use something like audio-title. Neither of which break
> existing formats. Why TITLE was propose and (i feel) rushed through
> with 4 +1´s is what i am not happy about - that is not community.
> 
> > > I would kindly ask that you rollback your changes until this can be
> > > discussed further 4 people in a community is not consensus.
> >
> > How would YOU address this issue, haudio needs a "title" 94% of our use
> > case examples say so, what is the point of "the process" if you cant
> > work to it?
> 
> --- i believe it was solved with FN. 

I don't think it was "solved" we settled for second best.

> My biggest concern is that fact
> that by usurping the term TITLE you are breaking all the previous
> hCards.

I don't understand "how" it breaks hCard? 

> 
> I´m not saying we don´t NEED a term to represent the title of a work,
> just don´t re-define terms that already have meaning.

Terms that SHOULD have been thought of more before they became a
specification, hcard hogging the class name "title" seems a little short
sighted to me particularly when the word title has a vast amount of
OTHER meanings none of which have anything to do with "job-titles"

> 
> > A little guidance would be nice, instead of just saying this is wrong
> > please offer a resolution, some guidance even?
> 
> --- i am very close to the original hCard work, so i was not trying to
> involve myself early in this discussion and sway the thought process.

I think your thoughts would have been warmly received being on of the
"respected" members of our community...

> I purposely (what i thought was the impartial thing to do)  let some
> discussion move forward without my "interference". That discussion was
> a few "+1"s and and an re-explanation of the original question. That
> isn't a discussion.

No It was ignored on the whole because of the hcard issues which is too
much for a lot of people to think about so it gets left to the ones who
can or want to "deal" with the question...

> 
> The original logic in the question is flawed. The first portion is correct
> 
> > FN in hCard means "the formatted name of a person or orgainzation".
> > FN in hAudio currently means "the formatted name of an audio recording".
> 
> It is the next portion which is misleading and wrong:
> 
> > TITLE in hCard means "job title"

I dont think that is an accurate description, simply the "function of
the object" would be more correct and "generic" and not *break* anything

> > TITLE in hAudio means "audio recording title"

Consider this example 

Beethoven's Turkish March

the "function of the object", the music that gets played through your
speakers of headphones is a "Turkish March" 

> 
> It should be
> TITLE in hCard means the Job Title of the person or organization
> TITLE in hAudio means the Job Title of the audio recording
> 
> The correct logic is completely fine, but that is not what the
> proposal is trying to do. It is attempting to undo the definition of
> TITLE across all microformats, which has been discussed before and
> rejected in such formats as the citation.

No I disagree there "should" be a serious discussion about changing the
meaning of "title" in hcard (just a little) in order to allow "title" to
be used in other uf's in a more accurate way, I very much doubt this
would happen though do you? 

> 
> Due to lack of any sort of discussion, decent or any massive support,
> i was not expecting to see such an important edit to the wiki page.
> i´m not against haudio or having some sort of title property for the
> format, what i do not like is attempting to break any format with any
> property that has already been defined. I believe this issue is
> already solved with FN, (IMHO) there is no need for this proposal to
> use TITLE.
> 
> So now you have my -1.

Thank You 4 -1 

> 
> -brian
>