[uf-new] Re: hAudio issue: position

[Michael Smethurst]

On 15/1/08 16:18, "Manu Sporny" <msporny at digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> Michael Smethurst wrote:
>> In terms of marking up acts and scenes and movements and works and etc I'd
>> encourage hAudio to steer well clear. It's a hideous minefield and I suspect
>> hAudio can solve 80% of the problem by avoiding this stuff.
> 
> Hmmm... Perhaps I'm missing something, but hAudio can already mark up
> operatic pieces:
> 
> http://microformats.org/wiki/haudio#Opera_Example
> 
> POSITION is a loose descriptor of where the piece fits in if it is part
> of a collection of some kind. It is most useful when the other pieces
> are not listed on the same page.
> 
> Position can be:
> 
> 1. The position of the track on a CD.
> 2. Podcast # of the recording.
> 3. The position on a top-10 list.
> 4. The physical position on a CD set of an Operatic piece.
> 5. The side and track # of an LP (ie: A1, B2)
> 6. Specified in TABLE elements.
> 7. Can be specified out-of-sequence.
> 
> I don't think we avoided the problem when putting position in there...
> it takes on the challenges of positional identifiers for audio
> recordings. If we take position out of the hAudio spec, we lose support
> for all of the use cases listed above.
> 

Again I apologise. I didn't mean that hAudio doesn't handle positioning in
these groups. It does and again I vote to retain position as is

Just meant that in general haudio doesn't model works vs performances vs
recordings etc. And again I don't think it should attempt to touch this
complexity

Which I think means we're in agreement?!?

> 
>> For an idea of
>> the complexity I'd point semweb minded people at the fine work of Yves
>> Raimond on the music ontology (which incidentally it would be nice to see
>> used in the rdf-a hAudio spec):
>> 
>> http://musicontology.com/
> 
> There will probably be multiple OWL mappings from hAudio RDF to
> MusicOntology RDF... for example:
> 
> <owl:Class rdf:ID="Recording">
>   <owl:equivalentClass
>      rdf:resource="http://purl.org/ontology/mo/Recording"/>
> </owl:Class>

cool
> 
> I've been thinking about heavy re-use of MusicOntology (which is great,
> if you need to do more than just markup albums/tracks). The big mistake
> I think the MO folks made was putting properties in there that should
> have been just plain URIs:
> 
> http://musicontology.com/#term_myspace
> http://musicontology.com/#term_amazon_asin
> http://musicontology.com/#term_musicmoz


I'll let yves fight his own corner here
;-)

> 
> It's so incredibly heavyweight that it makes most people's heads spin
> when attempting to just simply mark up a song. That being said, there
> will still be mappings from one to the other (or re-use of some of the
> MO vocabulary in the hAudio RDF.

Smashing!

> 
> -- manu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-new mailing list
> microformats-new at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new


http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.