Mo-hAudio

[WebOrganics]

Hello all

Some weeks ago I introduced you all to hAudioRDF a way of extracting
music recommendations using the hcard microformat and haudio, at the
time I was unhappy about the final outcome so I decided that a
straight hAudio Microformat to RDF Music Ontology may be better, some
examples:

source: http://weborganics.co.uk/mo-haudio/

extracted rdf: http://weborganics.co.uk/mo-haudio/?id=http://weborganics.co.uk/mo-haudio/

GRDDL output using Triplr: http://triplr.org/rdf/weborganics.co.uk/mo-haudio/

XSLT Source and GRDDL profile: http://weborganics.co.uk/Profiles/Mo-hAudio.xsl

Mo-hAudio replaces all previous versions of hAudioRDF.

Thanks :)

Martin McEvoy
http://weborganics.co.uk/

[Yves Raimond]

Hello Martin!

> Hello all
>
> Some weeks ago I introduced you all to hAudioRDF a way of extracting
> music recommendations using the hcard microformat and haudio, at the
> time I was unhappy about the final outcome so I decided that a
> straight hAudio Microformat to RDF Music Ontology may be better, some
> examples:

This is *so* great!! Really well done!!!

>
> source: http://weborganics.co.uk/mo-haudio/
>
> extracted rdf: http://weborganics.co.uk/mo-haudio/?id=http://weborganics.co.uk/mo-haudio/
>

Looks great :-)
Just a couple of really small comments:
* I would use foaf:made instead of mo:composes here (to match the
foaf:maker in the mo:Record)
* I guess the Track URIs should be different from the item URIs
(objects of mo:available_as). A track may be associated to multiple
items (eg. a file over HTTP, a file on bittorrent, a track on my
particular CD, etc.) A quick fix would be to just have blank nodes
here.

> GRDDL output using Triplr: http://triplr.org/rdf/weborganics.co.uk/mo-haudio/
>

This output looks rather weird, all the URIs are nsN:charlatans, where
N is between 1 and 67.
I guess something must be going wrong here :-)

> XSLT Source and GRDDL profile: http://weborganics.co.uk/Profiles/Mo-hAudio.xsl
>
> Mo-hAudio replaces all previous versions of hAudioRDF.
>

Cool! I added you to the motools sourcefourge project, so you can
update the version there (or I can do it if you want).

Thanks again Martin, that's really great work!

y

[WebOrganics]

Hello Yves

Thanks for your comments

On May 12, 5:24 pm, "Yves Raimond" <yves.raim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Martin!
>
> > Hello all
>
> > Some weeks ago I introduced you all to hAudioRDF a way of extracting
> > music recommendations using the hcard microformat and haudio, at the
> > time I was unhappy about the final outcome so I decided that a
> > straight hAudio Microformat to RDF Music Ontology may be better, some
> > examples:
>
> This is *so* great!! Really well done!!!
>
>
>
> > source:http://weborganics.co.uk/mo-haudio/
>

> > extracted rdf:http://weborganics.co.uk/mo-haudio/?id=http://weborganics.co.uk/mo-ha...

>
> Looks great :-)
> Just a couple of really small comments:
> * I would use foaf:made instead of mo:composes here (to match the
> foaf:maker in the mo:Record)

I agree, Changed to foaf:made instead of mo:composes

> * I guess the Track URIs should be different from the item URIs
> (objects of mo:available_as). A track may be associated to multiple
> items (eg. a file over HTTP, a file on bittorrent, a track on my
> particular CD, etc.) A quick fix would be to just have blank nodes
> here.

Maybe I should remove the field mo:available_as entirely would this
then solve the issue?

>
> > GRDDL output using Triplr:http://triplr.org/rdf/weborganics.co.uk/mo-haudio/
>
> This output looks rather weird, all the URIs are nsN:charlatans, where
> N is between 1 and 67.
> I guess something must be going wrong here :-)
>

Hmm not sure what is going on there ...! the output is much better
using the W3C GRDDL sevice

http://www.w3.org/2007/08/grddl/?docAddr=http://weborganics.co.uk/mo-haudio/

> > XSLT Source and GRDDL profile:http://weborganics.co.uk/Profiles/Mo-hAudio.xsl
>
> > Mo-hAudio replaces all previous versions of hAudioRDF.
>
> Cool! I added you to the motools sourcefourge project, so you can
> update the version there (or I can do it if you want).
>

Thanks Yves, Could you upload Mo-hAudio for me please, I am not to
comfortable with SVN and I dont want to "break" anything :)

> Thanks again Martin, that's really great work!
>

My Pleasure.

> y

Martin McEvoy

[Yves Raimond]

Hello!

> Maybe I should remove the field mo:available_as entirely would this
> then solve the issue?

Hmm, not really - the Track resource is different from the item (as in
FRBR). A particular Track may be related to several items (for
example several mp3s in different locations corresponding to the same
track). So I think it'll be better either to have a blank node for
tracks or to have a separate identifier for the track.

On a side-note, we need to clean that stuff up in MO and have a nice
diagram (as for the workflow stuff) for these things though.

>
>
> >
> > > GRDDL output using Triplr:http://triplr.org/rdf/weborganics.co.uk/mo-haudio/
> >
> > This output looks rather weird, all the URIs are nsN:charlatans, where
> > N is between 1 and 67.
> > I guess something must be going wrong here :-)
> >
> Hmm not sure what is going on there ...! the output is much better
> using the W3C GRDDL sevice
>
> http://www.w3.org/2007/08/grddl/?docAddr=http://weborganics.co.uk/mo-haudio/
>
>
> > > XSLT Source and GRDDL profile:http://weborganics.co.uk/Profiles/Mo-hAudio.xsl
> >
> > > Mo-hAudio replaces all previous versions of hAudioRDF.
> >
> > Cool! I added you to the motools sourcefourge project, so you can
> > update the version there (or I can do it if you want).
> >
>
> Thanks Yves, Could you upload Mo-hAudio for me please, I am not to
> comfortable with SVN and I dont want to "break" anything :)
>

Np :-)

Cheers!
y

[WebOrganics]

On May 12, 10:13 pm, "Yves Raimond" <yves.raim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> > Maybe I should remove the field mo:available_as entirely would this
> > then solve the issue?
>
> Hmm, not really - the Track resource is different from the item (as in
> FRBR). A particular Track may be related to several items (for
> example several mp3s in different locations corresponding to the same
> track). So I think it'll be better either to have a blank node for
> tracks or to have a separate identifier for the track.

Right! I will have a go tomorrow sometime and see what I can come up
with

Thanks for your help


Martin

>
> On a side-note, we need to clean that stuff up in MO and have a nice
> diagram (as for the workflow stuff) for these things though.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > GRDDL output using Triplr:http://triplr.org/rdf/weborganics.co.uk/mo-haudio/
>
> > > This output looks rather weird, all the URIs are nsN:charlatans, where
> > > N is between 1 and 67.
> > > I guess something must be going wrong here :-)
>
> > Hmm not sure what is going on there ...! the output is much better
> > using the W3C GRDDL sevice
>

> > http://www.w3.org/2007/08/grddl/?docAddr=http://weborganics.co.uk/mo-...

[WebOrganics]

> > Hmm, not really - the Track resource is different from the item (as in
> > FRBR). A particular Track may be related to several items (for
> > example several mp3s in different locations corresponding to the same
> > track). So I think it'll be better either to have a blank node for
> > tracks or to have a separate identifier for the track.
>
> Right! I will have a go tomorrow sometime and see what I can come up
> with
>

I have updated the Mo-hAudio XSLT output,

I have removed "mo:available_as" in favour of just "mo:download" ...

and all tracks have separate identifier.

example output: http://weborganics.co.uk/mo-haudio/?id=http://weborganics.co.uk/mo-haudio/

thanks for all your help Yves, If there is anything else?... please
feel free to comment.

Thanks

Martin

[Yves Raimond]

Hello!

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:45 PM, WebOrganics <ad...@weborganics.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > > Hmm, not really - the Track resource is different from the item (as in
> > > FRBR). A particular Track may be related to several items (for
> > > example several mp3s in different locations corresponding to the same
> > > track). So I think it'll be better either to have a blank node for
> > > tracks or to have a separate identifier for the track.
> >
> > Right! I will have a go tomorrow sometime and see what I can come up
> > with
> >
>
> I have updated the Mo-hAudio XSLT output,
>
> I have removed "mo:available_as" in favour of just "mo:download" ...

Actually, I kind of liked mo:available_as instead of mo:download. The
difference between the two (this also holds for the mo:free_download
and the such) is that available_as points directly to the audio item
(which is the case here), whereas download points to a web page
allowing you to get to the the audio.

Apart from that, I have nothing to add :-)

I'll update the sourcefourge repository some time this day.

Cheers!
y

[WebOrganics]

On May 14, 10:44 am, "Yves Raimond" <yves.raim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello!
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:45 PM, WebOrganics <ad...@weborganics.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Hmm, not really - the Track resource is different from the item (as in
> > > > FRBR). A particular Track may be related to several items (for
> > > > example several mp3s in different locations corresponding to the same
> > > > track). So I think it'll be better either to have a blank node for
> > > > tracks or to have a separate identifier for the track.
>
> > > Right! I will have a go tomorrow sometime and see what I can come up
> > > with
>
> > I have updated the Mo-hAudio XSLT output,
>
> > I have removed "mo:available_as" in favour of just "mo:download" ...
>
> Actually, I kind of liked mo:available_as instead of mo:download. The
> difference between the two (this also holds for the mo:free_download
> and the such) is that available_as points directly to the audio item
> (which is the case here), whereas download points to a web page
> allowing you to get to the the audio.

Perfectly good reasons, thanks Yves changed back to available_as

>
> Apart from that, I have nothing to add :-)
>
> I'll update the sourcefourge repository some time this day.
>

Thank You

> Cheers!
> y

Martin