On Oct 14, 2007, at 12:10 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
What do you mean by "there is no 'track' in data"?
I thought we created microformats by looking at evidence, not
considering personal opinions and supposition about what may be
understood at dome unknown point in the future.
Hi Andy,
and i thought i was helping define a microformat, not practicing my
skill in public debate. so, we're even. :)
moving on...
"there is no 'track' in data." I wrote that thinking it was self-
explanatory and obvious, so, sorry if it seemed too abstract. a
"track" refers to a physically demonstrable "track" in a recording
medium, whether that track is a set of continuous grooves divided by
physical markers, or a series of sectors on a CD/DVD divided by start
and end markers. In short, "track" is a term reserved for physical,
tangible media. Its usage in digital media derived from the
translation of physical recorded media, making intangible
representations of their physical counterparts (e.g., iTunes), and
the textual cataloging of media information (e.g., Amazon, Discogs).
If people refer to a songs or other recording as a "track" - as the
evidence [1] shows they do - then we should use that.
[1] - <http://tinyurl.com/yvekd2>
<http://tinyurl.com/ywg8qu>
<http://tinyurl.com/2kq96z>
good point! however, people also refer to items as "songs," but a
google search on "'spoken word' songs" (and similar variations of non-
musical recorded genres, such as "audiobook +songs") gives evidence
that popular usage is incorrect as well. So it's easy to find
evidence of people using both "track" and "song," but neither are
correct. If we have the opportunity to define a standard, why not go
with one -- "item" -- that is universally correct?
--
At the risk of being tangental, I'd like to illustrate the problem I
previously mentioned in my last post about "patch," and the enormous
taxonomical snafu that's been for the electronic music instrument
industry. I write this intending to support the kind of problems
"track" and "song" present when using them out of their original
context, but understand it could unfortunately be irrelevant
supposition...
Early programmable synthesizers consisted of a series of functionally-
specific modules. To set up a playable instrument from the hardware,
the user employed patch cables between modules. Over time, this
activity became known as "patching," the configuration could be
transcribed on a blank "patch sheet" [1], and users referred to these
configurations as "patches." When memory first surfaced in consumer
hardware, manufacturers chose to continue use of the term "patch"
even though no patch cables were anywhere in sight.
Fast forward 25 years. The market now uses "ensemble," "instrument
settings," "multi," "preset," "tone," and a handful of other terms
all for the same thing, but more than anything else, it still uses
"patch." And nearly every time "patch" is used in a product, the
manual includes a few paragraphs explaining what the word "patch"
means and why the user needs to think in this way.
I see this as an opportunity to prevent our involvement in a similar,
unnecessary abstraction. That's all.
Thanks for your time,
Justin
[1] http://www.yawgmoth.com/files/arp2600patch.jpg
_______________________________________________
microformats-new mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
