[uf-new] hAudio/Audio RDF clarification (possible admin moderation request)

Martin McEvoy martin at weborganics.co.uk
Tue Sep 16 15:01:47 PDT 2008

Hello Manu...

I really do not have to answer any of your remarks in this email, 
because you have only told half truths and not really answered any of my 
questions. I gave you reasonable notice of my intentions I spoke plainly 
to you Manu I always do...

Manu Sporny wrote:
>> Martin McEvoy wrote:
>> Yo may be wandering about all the retaliation about "audio rdfa" Manu
>> when you Microformats New mailing list with hAudio RDFa  you received
>> little support for your endeavour, in fact it was explicitly stated
>> that:
>>> --- this is one of the things that microformats wants to prevent...
>> http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-July/000716.html
>> basically because it causes a "drift" in semantics. you received no
>> feedback from the list because we didn't want you to do it. you read
>> Brian's email right?  it was an incidental concern.
> The reason the hAudio RDFa effort was started was because a number of us
> were concerned about what would happen if folks from this community
> wanted to do hAudio markup using RDFa, 

Who exactly is "Us" The Microformats Community, The w3c, or Digital 

And as I have said previously you were advised not to peruse 
hAudio-RDFa, because it will cause a "drift" in semantics, haudio will 
no longer be about the hAudio Microformat, it Will also be about the RDF 
vocabulary, a Fairly important fact you overlooked hAudio is not about 
RDF, or the "The Semantic Web" as a whole its about real life  
Publishing Patterns in HTML and the "meaning" contained therein.

> or vice versa. We wanted there to
> be nearly parallel ways of marking up semantics about audio in both RDFa
> and Microformats. We wanted there to be a clear mapping between the two.
"We" is Digital Bizzare then? right!
> That is of secondary importance, however. I'm disturbed by what you are
> implying - that research projects must get the approval of this
> community before proceeding. I don't think that anybody in this
> community believes that is the best way to proceed - it would lead to a
> chilling effect on semantics research if one had to get approval from
> the Microformats community before using the basic work that all of us
> have done here.
It would have been nice If you would have at least talked to this 
community first before you embarked on your endeavour, sorry you did 
didn't you and as I believe Nobody was really up for the idea,  What is 
the POINT in duplicating it? and confusing people?

Principle:  KISS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle
> Do you think that scientists should be required to get approval before
> doing research on web semantics? That seems to be what you are implying
> with the statements you have made above.
?..no and no.
>> It goes a little further than that,  basically Manu You ripped the
>> hAudio Microformat against the wishes of the Microformats Community
> I certainly take issue with this - it sounds as if you're accusing me of
> plagiarism or something equally evil. 
You know I have never actually said anything like that to you have I?.

I will explain again, to see if you understand this time....

How did you rip off this community? (principally hAudio there are others)

"You ripped off the hAudio Microformat against the wishes of the 
Microformats Community"

Here was your first foray into the question about hAudio and RDFa


Nobody Answered your noble call to the community, I did off list, I was 
interested (personaly) because I had just started exploring how hAudio 
matches up to other Audio formats, Chiefly RSS2, Music Ontology(I have 
an active interest in this..) XSPF(This too..) and a generic RDF 
vocabulary(for GRDDL, hey this too..) I was interested in how this would 
"pan out" in RDFa(would you believe this too..) There is a Reason for 
all this of course. If hAudio can be Matched up Semantically n=>n  with 
an Existing Standard, do you not think It should? it would kind of make 
it "easier on the cognitive load" ....

> We have gone out of our way to let
> everyone know that hAudio RDFa and Audio RDF was based[1][2][3] upon
> work done on the Microformats community (check the diff-logs and
> date/time stamps in the wiki - we have stated this from the beginning).
> In addition, it is clearly stated in the patents/copyright section of
> each vocabulary document that Digital Bazaar has authored[4][5][6][7]:
That's kind of you......
> """
> This document and all ideas and patentable material outlined in the
> document are hereby placed into the public domain. It is our intent that
> all future additions, modifications and contributions will be placed
> into the public domain as well.
> We have released our copyright and control of this vocabulary for the
> good of the community and the betterment of the world in the name of
> open standards.
> We kindly ask that proper credit is given when using the vocabulary. A
> line like the following is sufficient:
> The Media/Audio/Video/Commerce RDF Vocabulary is an initiative lead by
> Digital Bazaar, Inc. and collaborated on by a number of people from the
> Web at large, the World Wide Web Consortium, the RDFa community and the
> Microformats community
Hold up a minute... you are Joking? are you?

"The Media/Audio/Video/Commerce RDF Vocabulary is an initiative lead by
Digital Bazaar, Inc"

the Audio: http://microformats.org/wiki/haudio
The Media: http://wiki.digitalbazaar.com/en/HMedia_Microformat(what is 
Video: http://digitalbazaar.com/media/video (which I presume is a subset 
of hAudio, my name is on the bottom it must be)
and Commerce: http://digitalbazaar.com/commerce .... Is? currency I hope 
http://microformats.org/wiki/currency or not Because Neither You,  Or  
I, or many of the others are somehow involved in this "collaborative work"?
> .
> """
> We have released every vocabulary that we have into the public domain.
> Microformats has done the same with hAudio. 
I should hope so....
> I fail to see how one
> community is ripping the other one off? The whole purpose we have placed
> things into the public domain is to ensure that the work we do here and
> at Digital Bazaar can be re-used in other places without fear of
> copyright restrictions.
There Are restrictions Manu!  None of which either I or possibly others 
of This community could possibly ever "ethically" condone...

"We kindly ask that proper credit is given when using the vocabulary. A 
line like the following is sufficient:

The Commerce/Audio/Video RDF Vocabulary is an initiative lead by Digital 
Bazaar, Inc. and collaborated on by a number of people from the Web at 
large, the World Wide Web Consortium, the RDFa community and the 
Microformats community."

>> and
>> thus seriously damaged the haudio process in fact you almost killed it
>> dead. if I could have stopped you I would. lets get hAudio out the
>> door first eh!
> Getting hAudio to Draft and beyond has always been a high priority and
> will continue to be one. hAudio and Audio RDF are pragmatic approaches
> to the problem of audio identification. My hope is that they will be
> used by the general public to discover new artists via semantic web
> techniques. I don't believe that we should bet on one approach or one
> technology.
Pretty speech, are you running for President?
> I vehemently reject the notion that I am acting against its best
> interests or against the best interests of the 60,000+ artists whose
> music we distribute. In addition - my entire family is composed of
> artists (sculptors, painters, architects, writers, musicians, etc.). I
> grew up watching many artists languish in obscurity while those with
> better means (money) could market their creations with relative ease. I
> view the web, and web semantics as a great equalizer of cultural control.
> I have a deep personal commitment to improve the lives of artists and
> creators of all walks of life - I founded Digital Bazaar to stand behind
> that goal and it is what I have dedicated a very large part of my life
> to achieving. Not only for myself, but for the hundreds of thousands of
> people that want to make a living creating and bettering our global culture.
.... do you want me to cry?
> Why would I want to stop that? It goes against everything that we're
> trying to achieve.
Your cause is Just! and noble!, sorry Manu but please Keep up the 
Question is....

"hAudio/Audio RDF clarification" ...
>> I request that you refrain from Editing the hAudio wiki further until
>> I can be sure you are not serving your own needs.


> Elaborate on what personal needs that I am serving. If you are going to
> accuse me of doing something nefarious, be specific
"Infamous by way of being extremely wicked."?
> . I have no problem
> addressing any of your concerns in a public forum. I have nothing to
> hide and feel that I have been overly transparent, logical and open
> about what we're trying to achieve.
So you Say...

This is NOT a Microformat:  

The Microformats Community did NOT collaborate With Digital Bizzare, the 
W3C or The RDFa Community on any Of this:


are you Seriously Saying Me "Martin McEvoy" had in any way 
"collaborated" with you in ANY of these formats? I thought that the 
hAudio RDFa n=>n mapping was Interesting that was all. More Importantly 
the Discussion, to which I had no real part of,  never existed... its 
just part of the constant sensationalism

>> I cant believe you became an invited expert over your efforts. how did
>> you deserve that.
> You would have to ask the members of the RDFa in XHTML Task Force on why
> they accepted me as an Invited Expert. I'm sure they would vouch for all
> of the hard work that I have done for that community.
Manu I'm sure you have worked  your little fingers to the bone trying to 
gain credibility for the things you have done, how about gaining some 
credibility in the Microformats Community first, does that somehow matter?
> Just like there are people in this community that can vouch for the
> countless hours and hard work that I have volunteered, along with the
> other fine contributors - including yourself, in getting hAudio to the
> point that it is at now.
>> I will be adding Myself as Editor on the Version 1.0  format, because
>> I don't have some other agenda other than completing haudio.
> Had you approached this in a non-combative manner, I would have not
> taken issue with what you are proposing. However, to say that I have
> done something wrong 
I do, don't you see that?
> and, I presume, to forcibly remove me from the
> specification would need the intervention of a group of people other
> than either of us. If you would like to proceed down this road, please
> state exactly what you think I have done wrong and make your request to
> the admins in this forum and not through private e-mail.
Manu these were Personal issues with how I felt on the hAudio Process 
was going, and what a negative effects Audio RDF are having. We could 
have done this reasonably as a personal issue, if this could not be 
resolved then I intended on taking my issues to one of the admin's of 
this list because of how personally I felt about your actions, I do not 
feel I am wrong in my actions.]

How about remove your self  Manu? by appointing a New Editor, Maybe 
someone would like to nominate themselves?
> Your approach is offensive to say the least.

so was yours....
> Even with that realization,
> I still think that your heart is in the right place and if you want to
> do some minor edits to hAudio in order to get it to Draft, I'm certainly
> not going to stand in your way. In fact, I would encourage it - just as
> I have been over the past several weeks[8][9][10].

>> Manu If you Ignore this email like you seem to conveniently do, I will
>> post this email to the list because I think you will be ignoring me
>> and I really would like some answers this time publicly or privately.
> There is a very large chasm between the concept of "ignoring" and "not
> having enough time to respond". My e-mail load hovers around 100-150
> e-mails that I must read a day - on average, I respond to about 30-40
> e-mails a day and work 13-15 hour days (that's actual hours worked, not
> counting breakfast, lunch and dinner). I don't have time to get to every
> e-mail I want to respond to and quite often miss important e-mails.
> There are several others on this list in the same situation - we do our
> best, but can't always make everyone happy.
Yes you have to prioritize your work load.
> Just to be clear - accusing me of mis-conduct and then threatening to
> make the information public is a terrible way to get a response. It will
> backfire each and every time you attempt to do it.
> I regret that you have taken this most reprehensible approach to do
> whatever it is that you are trying to do. If you goal is to out me as
> some sort of double-crossing semantics standards spy, 
 I  again Didn't say that... I really wish you would not distort my words?
> you are going to fail. 
Sigh! at what Defending something I have spent A Year and Half 
Developing. something I actually care about, never mind my personal 
credibility, In case you havnt guessed I dont really care about My 
Personal credibility Manu, You should Know that... I do Care about all 
the effects I have on My Community...
> I have better things to do with my time than get wrapped up in
> some sort of petty standards fight - I care about helping artists make a
> decent living, everything else is a logical byproduct of that mission.
... good Manu at least you have some Morals and Regard for your your 

Best Wishes

Martin McEvoy.
> -- manu
> [1]http://wiki.digitalbazaar.com/en/HAudio_RDFa#hAudio_RDFa_Draft_Specification
> [2]http://wiki.digitalbazaar.com/en/HAudio_RDFa#hAudio_RDFa_Specification
> [3]http://wiki.digitalbazaar.com/en/HAudio_RDFa#Patents
> [4]http://purl.org/media/
> [5]http://purl.org/media/audio
> [6]http://purl.org/media/video
> [7]http://purl.org/commerce/
> [8]http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2008-August/001709.html
> [9]http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2008-August/001693.html
> [10]http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2008-August/001708.html
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-new mailing list
> microformats-new at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new

More information about the microformats-new mailing list