On 3/14/06, Simon Reinhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Björn Krombholz wrote: > > That means, a lot of artists have to be added twice as a member of a group. > Only those who perform an instrument and vocals. > > > With the implementation of this proposal we are already loosing > > groupings like 'FooBand had members A, B and C', is this additional > > duplication really necessary? > We don't even have such a grouping if persons were members in > different time periods. So? Why should this be necessary?
Because it split the same thing up into 3 different ARs. > It's just a matter of display and APR should take care of that. > Display difficulties should never be a reason for not implementing > something. :) AR is for semantics, not for nice grouped and easy > accessible links between entities. Indeed, the same semantics in 3 different constructs. > It gives additional information and I think we need those sub types for > ArtistRoleInheritance. Why? > > IMO I'd be better to have only one "is member of" relationship, not 3. > Do you mean not add that information at all or add it but without > sub types? If the latter, how should that look like? Yes the latter, and as you said, it doesn't really matter how it looks like. You gave the reason for this above: "Display difficulties should never be a reason [...]". #Fuchs _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
