« Return to Thread: an alternate xspf over json implementation
Re: an alternate xspf over json implementation
by Chris Anderson-4
::
Rate this Message:
On 5/13/07, Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> wrote:
>
> Even so, what do you think the definition is?
>
> 1) Is it purely presentational, like CSS? That implies that it's
> opaque/non-semantic data which is no more factual than a background
> color or font style.
>
> 2) Is it an assertion about the legal status of a third party resource?
> If so, who's doing the asserting? Why should this little scrap of XML
> be trusted on something with so much potential for trouble?
>
> 3) Is it -- like the creator, album, title, and duration fields -- a
> query string that can do double duty as metadata?
>
> You might want to ask Creative Commons what they recommend. I would do
> that either by posting to the cc-licenses list or by privately emailing
> the CC tech folk.
I agree, it is a _tough_ question. I'd say that its a semantic
assertion, but one that must be taken with a grain of salt, depending
on who is generating the xspf. Some content servers allow users to
specify a release license (mfdz.com) and some mandate creative commons
(ccmixter). In those cases, where the license is asserted so close to
the user's preference being stated, the XML can be trusted as well as
any other source. In the case of resyndication, someone relying on the
license would do well to check back up the chain - eg. Grabb.it could
assert a creative commons license, but we're not infallible. It would
be best in that case to follow the "info" url to the original source.
As far as searching and metadata go, I think it qualifies as both. I
can imagine two songs being distinguished by license - for instance an
intrumental version may forgo the copyright associate with its lyrics,
etc. If the title doesn't specify 'instrumental', the license may be
the best disambiguator.
Good suggestion to check with CC!
Chris
_______________________________________________
Playlist mailing list
Playlist@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/playlist
>
> Even so, what do you think the definition is?
>
> 1) Is it purely presentational, like CSS? That implies that it's
> opaque/non-semantic data which is no more factual than a background
> color or font style.
>
> 2) Is it an assertion about the legal status of a third party resource?
> If so, who's doing the asserting? Why should this little scrap of XML
> be trusted on something with so much potential for trouble?
>
> 3) Is it -- like the creator, album, title, and duration fields -- a
> query string that can do double duty as metadata?
>
> You might want to ask Creative Commons what they recommend. I would do
> that either by posting to the cc-licenses list or by privately emailing
> the CC tech folk.
I agree, it is a _tough_ question. I'd say that its a semantic
assertion, but one that must be taken with a grain of salt, depending
on who is generating the xspf. Some content servers allow users to
specify a release license (mfdz.com) and some mandate creative commons
(ccmixter). In those cases, where the license is asserted so close to
the user's preference being stated, the XML can be trusted as well as
any other source. In the case of resyndication, someone relying on the
license would do well to check back up the chain - eg. Grabb.it could
assert a creative commons license, but we're not infallible. It would
be best in that case to follow the "info" url to the original source.
As far as searching and metadata go, I think it qualifies as both. I
can imagine two songs being distinguished by license - for instance an
intrumental version may forgo the copyright associate with its lyrics,
etc. If the title doesn't specify 'instrumental', the license may be
the best disambiguator.
Good suggestion to check with CC!
Chris
_______________________________________________
Playlist mailing list
Playlist@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/playlist
« Return to Thread: an alternate xspf over json implementation
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
