Hi @Bitmap Thanx very much for the reply.
No unfortunately I wasn’t aware of that.
First of all to put things into perspective our primary goal is to make music discovery more open, indepentent and free (as in freedom) instead of relying on solely on 3rd party platforms. We want to help Bands and labels have their own website where people can visit, to learn more about the band, preview, listen, stream etc and purchase or support their work directly.
We didn’t set out to create a new vocabulary. Our goal is to build tools that help bands and labels publish structured metadata on their own websites.
For that to work we understand that metadata are essential to make a band’s website understanable across the web. Now in order to build these tools or use existing ones, we needed a stable, documented vocabulary. While Schema.org includes music types, they don’t fully cover things like ISRCs, catalog numbers, streaming and purchase links, or production credits. Music Ontology was the closest fit, so we built on it instead of starting from scratch.
MusicMeta isn’t trying to replace MusicBrainz or Schema.org. Its purpose is to give every band and label a way to publish their own metadata from their own domain, without accounts, central databases, or gatekeepers, so their website becomes their canonical presence on the open web.
The vocabulary is simply a means to that end. For example we are evaluating Schema.org’s MusicAlbum and MusicRecording types, since they’re more widely recognized by search engines and other tools. For artists and labels, we already use Schema.org’s MusicGroup and Organization types. For releases and tracks, we currently use Music Ontology because it models catalog numbers and ISRCs more accurately.
Given the above I would like to hear your feedback, does it make sense? are we overlooking anything? suggestions? criticism? Anything would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you
