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 > _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
