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

[Martin McEvoy]

Hello Ryan

On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 17:46 -0800, Ryan King wrote: 
> On Feb 12, 2008, at 5:32 PM, Martin McEvoy wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 18:30 -0500, Manu Sporny wrote:
> >> That is a very wise interjection... I agree, we should be asking "is
> >> it
> >> safe to say TITLE means title?"
> >
> > Yes it is.
> >
> > hcard "broke" itself when it was decided that "title" should be  
> > defined
> > as "Job title or functional position of the object" its very specific
> > and really only has something to do with a person when really should
> > have been referring to the "object"
> 
> I'd like to reiterate scott's point about avoiding polarizing  
> language. Decisions made about hCard (4 years ago) can't easily be  
> undone, 

I realize this fact.. 

> so making remarks about their merits are counter-productive.

This is what we do as a community isnt it? we tell people how badly they
are marking up their websites, inform people of anti-patters, discourage
any talk of namespaces because they have failed?  we must therefore be
able to show integrity and consistency and be able to criticize our own
behavior. (this is not an attack by the way just an observation)

> 
> > ...
> >
> > If we applied this principle to "title" which has many different
> > meaning's as we all know the definition would simply be "The title of
> > the object the hCard represents" which could then be re-used as simply
> > "The title of the object" I dont think this will "break" hcard in any
> > way It would enhance it further in my mind.
> 
> In the interest of precision, the hcard definition we're talking about  
> comes from vCard, section 3.5.1:
> > Type purpose: To specify the job title, functional position or  
> > function of the object the vCard represents.

can I just think this bit through with you its the end bit that
interests me...*OR*

 "function of the object the vCard represents"

If we are referring to "objects" not people they do not have
"job-titles" so we must be referring to the functional title of of the
object eg:

People => Vice President, General manager, => their functional titles
are Job titles or Corporate titles,

Property => Allodial, Freehold, => their functional tiles are Land
Titles.

Books => The Lord Of the Rings, Treasure Island => their functional
tiles are Book Titles.

Music => The White Album, Point of Know Return => their functional tiles
are Album Titles.

Paintings => The Path of Life, Stuppach Madonna => their functional
titles are Art titles.

If you applied Occam's Razor to the above examples they all come under a
general term *title*

hcard does not need to change, we are not RE Defining anything "title"
is used correctly as a "job title"

In haudio we are proposing that "title" means "audio title" again
perfectly valid when referring to the "object" not a person. 

The Only Minor change/enhancement that would be made is here:

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

"Title      hCard Job title or functional position of the object."

would change to..

"Title      hCard Job title or functional position.
            hAudio Audio title.
            Generally the title of the object"

There is nothing earth shattering about that is there? HOW exacly would
that *break* the definition of hcard?

I am sorry if i am misunderstanding anything, Please take the time to
explain to me anything that is incorrect or wrong?. 

> 
> and
> >    Type special notes: This type is based on the X.520 Title  
> > attribute.
> >
> >    Type example:
> >
> >         TITLE:Director\, Research and Development
> 
> I can't seem to find any source for the semantics of X.520's title.
> -ryan

Thanks

Martin McEvoy