Re: haudio contributor

Andy Mabbett wrote:
> In message <47A9CCFD.50908sanchothefat.com>,
Robert O'Rourke
> <robsanchothefat.com> writes
>
>   
>> And are groups/bands considered to be an
organisation?
>>     
>
> Yes:
>
>         <foo class="fn org">Pink
Floyd</foo>
>
> not least because the alternative:
>
>         <foo class="fn">Pink
Floyd</foo>
>
> would be "optimised" (sic) to have a given
name of "Pink" and a family
> name of "Floyd".
>
>   
I don't disagree that groups/bands should be considered
organisations.

That said, I don't think the reason offered here is a strong
one. The 
issue described is directly related to FN's (over?)reuse
beyond its 
original vCard scope of person names, to cover any name.

[Not only has this led to the fn/title debate, but it seems
some 
implementors are confused between following the vCard
semantics (FN only 
for person names) or the hCard ones (FN for any name). See.

http://cinema
treasures.org/theater/365/, which uses an empty FN, 
resulting in their vCard not being detected by Operator,
only the address]

Guillaume





_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On 7/2/08 00:13, "Guillaume Lebleu"
<guillaumelebleu.org> wrote:

> I don't disagree that groups/bands should be considered
organisations.

This takes me back several months (June 2007) to a thread
about whether both
music:groups and music:artists_singular should be marked up
as
organisations:

http
://www.mail-archive.com/microformats-discussmicroformats.org/msg07887.h
tml

At the time Scott Reynen suggested:
<snip>
If it's just a generic contact that you know nothing about,
I'd say just use
fn, as adding org is potentially incorrect information. But
if you know it's
a music act, I think it makes sense to consider even an
individual
performer's name to be an organization name in that context.
I'd say there's
a difference, for example, between Norah Jones the person,
who would be
<span class="fn">Norah Jones</span>,
and Norah Jones the musical act, which
would be <span class="fn org">Norah
Jones</span>.
</snip>

> 
> That said, I don't think the reason offered here is a
strong one. The
> issue described is directly related to FN's
(over?)reuse beyond its
> original vCard scope of person names, to cover any
name.

Agreed. The problem also arises with artists like Eminem,
Madonna, Prince.
How is fn optimisation supposed to work here?
> 
> [Not only has this led to the fn/title debate, but it
seems some
> implementors are confused between following the vCard
semantics (FN only
> for person names) or the hCard ones (FN for any name).
See.
> http://cinema
treasures.org/theater/365/, which uses an empty FN,
> resulting in their vCard not being detected by
Operator, only the address]
> 
> Guillaume
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discussmicroformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss


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.
					
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On Thu, February 7, 2008 09:55, Michael Smethurst wrote:

> This takes me back several months (June 2007) to a
thread about whether
> both music:groups and music:artists_singular should be
marked up as
> organisations:

> http
://www.mail-archive.com/microformats-discussmicroformats.org/msg07887.html

Please use the canonical archives when citing mailing list
posts; we can't
know that third-arty archives are accurate or comprehensive,
or that they
will always be available.

that post is:

  <http://microformats.org/discu
ss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-June/009850.html>

> At the time Scott Reynen suggested:
> <snip>
> If it's just a generic contact that you know nothing
about, I'd say just
> use fn, as adding org is potentially incorrect
information. But if you
> know it's a music act, I think it makes sense to
consider even an
> individual performer's name to be an organization name
in that context.
> I'd say there's
> a difference, for example, between Norah Jones the
person, who would be
> <span class="fn">Norah
Jones</span>, and Norah Jones the musical act,
> which would be <span class="fn
org">Norah Jones</span>. </snip>

That strikes me as no more sensible now than it did then. If
I cite her,
as  "Norah Jones said", am I referring to her as a
person, or an
organisation?

Would her hCard's date of both refer to the day she left her
mother's
womb, or the day the supposed "organisation" was
founded?

Does Mozart become an organisation if I refer to his
symphonies, but not
if I refer to his marriage?

Do Winston Churchill or Ghandi suddenly become organisations
if we refer
to a recording of one of their speeches, but not one of
their books?

> ...with artists like Eminem, Madonna, Prince.
> How is fn optimisation supposed to work here?

Exactly as it does at present. Those are both formatted
names and
nicknames (and remain nicknames, if you also include the fn
of "Marshall
Bruce Mathers III", "Madonna Louise Ciccone
Ritchie " or "Prince Rogers
Nelson").

-- 
Andy Mabbett
** via webmail **

_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On Feb 7, 2008, at 4:59 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:

>> If it's just a generic contact that you know
nothing about, I'd say  
>> just
>> use fn, as adding org is potentially incorrect
information. But if  
>> you
>> know it's a music act, I think it makes sense to
consider even an
>> individual performer's name to be an organization
name in that  
>> context.
>> I'd say there's
>> a difference, for example, between Norah Jones the
person, who  
>> would be
>> <span class="fn">Norah
Jones</span>, and Norah Jones the musical act,
>> which would be <span class="fn
org">Norah Jones</span>. </snip>
>
> That strikes me as no more sensible now than it did
then. If I cite  
> her,
> as  "Norah Jones said", am I referring to her
as a person, or an
> organisation?

Note I started that suggestion with "if it's just a
generic contact  
that you know nothing about..."  So in that context,
there's no  
possible answer to your questions.  I wasn't suggesting we
treat all  
musicians as organizations when we *do* know they're
individuals, just  
that our default assumption of musical acts is that they're 

organizations.  You're of course welcome to publish under
different  
assumptions; I wasn't suggesting we should all standardize
on this.

Peace,
Scott

_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On Thu, February 7, 2008 15:37, Scott Reynen wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2008, at 4:59 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
>
>>> If it's just a generic contact that you know
nothing about, I'd say
>>> just use fn, as adding org is potentially
incorrect information. But if
>>>  you know it's a music act, I think it makes
sense to consider even an
>>>  individual performer's name to be an
organization name in that
>>> context. I'd say there's
>>> a difference, for example, between Norah Jones
the person, who would be
>>>  <span class="fn">Norah
Jones</span>, and Norah Jones the musical
>>> act, which would be <span class="fn
org">Norah Jones</span>. </snip>
>>
>> That strikes me as no more sensible now than it did
then. If I cite
>> her, as  "Norah Jones said", am I
referring to her as a person, or an
>> organisation?
>
> Note I started that suggestion with "if it's just
a generic contact
> that you know nothing about..."

Which you then followed with "But if  you know it's a
music act"

> So in that context, there's no possible
> answer to your questions.  I wasn't suggesting we treat
all musicians as
> organizations when we *do* know they're individuals,
just that our default
> assumption of musical acts is that they're
organizations.

If you mean that in the context of "a musical act,
where the publisher
doesn't know whether that's a person or a group", then
I agree that that
would be the better default (in that no third, more
ambiguous, distinction
is yet available); but I don't think that that is how others
are
representing your suggestion.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
** via webmail **

_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss