W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > June 2014

Re: Music schema proposal

From: Mark Garrett <mark@moderndeveloperllc.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:25:04 -0500
Cc: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, PublicVocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>, danbri@google.com
Message-Id: <71CFDB52-271D-408C-B0D8-C3C4BEF100BE@moderndeveloperllc.com>
To: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
Simon,

I would see that as a failure of the search implementation, and not a limitation of the schema. In your example, it was not a case that Hancock was not associated with the work, it’s that Scherzo didn’t have a default search that included producers in its search corpus - you had to go to the Advanced Search. It is probably my individual bias, but I see structured data, and its schemas, as a way to particularize the data and it’s up to the consumers (Google, et al) to determine what to do with it. JM2C

— Mark
------
Mark Garrett
mark@moderndeveloperllc.com

On Jun 25, 2014, at 3:04 PM, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com> wrote:

> One set of details that is potentially rather important is the lack of common super-property that covers everyone who had something important to do with the creation of the work.
> 
> At the moment there are several properties, that cover several "roles"; the lack of any rdfs:subPropertyOf assertions  can lead to problems when searching.  This lack can be made up for by adding domain specific intelligence to all consumers of the data, or in some cases by falling back to full text search, but is not ideal. 
> 
> For example, user testing of Scherzo  at Indiana University revealed problems when names were not listed in the expected role:
> 
> Additionally, the  first task for Scherzo involved searching for Herbie Hancock’s album My Point	of View.	 	In the FRBRized data used by Scherzo,	Herbie Hancock was not	indicated as a performer	on the album but	 as  a	 producer,  a  fact which makes his	 name part of a list of “other  contributors”  in Scherzo and not	
> 
> actually indexed as	a name associated	with	that	album.	 
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com> wrote:
> I agree that instrumentation is an important field. It is complex enough  that I think it should be added as part of a subsequent proposal so we don't miss important details now.
> 
> - Vicki
> 
> 
> Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com 
>  
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Mark Garrett <mark@moderndeveloperllc.com> wrote:
>> Some work remains to synchronize with the proposal out of the Bib Extend
>> Community group. In the meantime, please see the attached PDF or the test
>> build pages:
>> http://sdo-music.appspot.com/MusicComposition
> 
> If I’m allowed to make a small suggestion. There is no field for the instrumentation of the composition. This is commonly referred to as “parts” for not only the instruments involved, but also vocals. This is rather important search information for orchestral and choral compositions.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> SATB; piano
> SSAA
> piano; double bass; piccalo trumpet; drums
> TTBB; violin I; violin II; viola, cello; bass; clarinet; oboe; horn; french horn; tuba
> 
> — Mark
> ------
> Mark Garrett
> mark@moderndeveloperllc.com
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 20:25:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:42 UTC