I agree with earlier comments that we don't need to duplicate the artist
information here. Other than that, I prefer the second option.
Cristov (wolfsong)
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: ZaphodBeeblebrox formerly known as mo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: [mb-style] Re: Re: Instrument/vocal member of on TEST
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:54:24 +0100
as this has been in limbo for a whole week I now ask for additional input and
veto:
we currently have
[artist] is/was a{additional:n additional} {instrument} performing member of
[artist]
[artist] has/had {instrument} performing member [artist]
[artist] is/was a{additional:n additional} {vocal} vocal performing member of
[artist]
[artist] has/had {additional} {vocal} vocal performing member [artist]
-- OR--
[artist] performed {instrument} as member of [artist]
(no reverse link phrase?)
[artist] performed {vocal} as member of [artist]
(no reverse link phrase?)
(g0llum could you come up with a reverse phrase please?)
personally I'm fine with either. as long as it is implemented.
as for the actual *work* of implementing it, I am fine with doing this task.
~mo
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
