[uf-new] hAudio FN or Title

[Martin McEvoy]

On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 14:00 -0500, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Martin McEvoy wrote:
> > This is in Response to Manu's suggestion that maybe we should talk about
> > changing hAudio "FN" to "Title"
> > 
> > <snip>
> > I've never been happy with the choice of FN instead of TITLE in hAudio
> > (TITLE means "job title" in Microformats). This could offer a good
> > compromise if people are interested?
> > </snip>
> > http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2008-January/011446.html
> > 
> > Manu I for Once Agree with you ;) and I'm not too happy with it either.
> > Feedback I have had about haudio seem to all have the same answer audio
> > has a title too lets call it that.
> > 
> > I am unsure If we should re-use "title" directly from hcard "Job title"
> > and "audio title" are both functions I guess? maybe someone can have
> > more input on this.
> 
> The thought about porting the Dublin Core names over to Microformats was
> mentioned on the uf-discuss list. Having a Dublin Core Microformat, may
> be a solution that works for everybody.

three questions

1, Why? use dc-terms for hAudio? you could just as easily use RSS naming
conventions, or XSPF and have relevant audio related information in the
class names.

2, Is Inventing a whole dc related microformats vocab' really necessary,
seems a bit overkill to me just to try and solve a title Issue 

3, Do you think a DC microformat needs a separate discussion? then when
that is finalized then talk about hAudio adopting it.
 
> 
> I'd be a very strong supporter of Dublin Core's use in Microformats,
> especially hAudio. Note that hAudio RDFa already re-uses the Dublin Core
> metadata vocabulary:
> 
> http://wiki.digitalbazaar.com/en/HAudio_RDFa

Yes Great stuff manu..

the example is still Live
http://weborganics.co.uk/files/hAudio-RDFa.xhtml

> 
> The main disagreement seemed to be in DC's choice of class names
> (DC.title, DC.contributor, DC.date). What about this for a Dublin Core
> Microformat:
> 
> dc-title
> dc-date
> dc-description
> ... and on.
> 
> This approach has two benefits:
> 
> * It uses Microformat-like names.
> * It re-uses a vocabulary that is largely accepted in the web semantics
>   community.

This seems more like re-inventing microformats? Is there a problem case
that says that a dc-microformat is needed? the only thing I can bring to
mind is a "Licence" microformat that could contain dc naming terms.


Thanks

Martin

> 
> -- manu
>