On 4/10/06, Nathan Noble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
yeah, there are lots of composers with no catalogue numbers.
i don't know my opera veryw ell, but aren't there clear divisions in to arias, etc?
with later operas like Wagner, etc. would just have the acts.
> hmm probably not, so yes, we could use the catalogue
> numbers as actual index
> values in the DB, i suppose, but then the even
> higher level-groups, (i.e.
> group of different versions of a fugue with
> different catalogue numbers)
> would lack a catalogue number, but instead have a
> set of numbers, i suppose.
I believe this implies catalogue numbers will not be
guaranteed unique and cannot alone be a primary key:
http://www.classicalarchives.com/chopincat.txt Also
some composers have no catalogue numbers or opus that
I'm aware of (not saying much), e.g. Ravel or
Gershwin. This shouldn't matter though; you can have
a id without meaning and still index by catalogue
numbers or anything else.
yeah, there are lots of composers with no catalogue numbers.
BTW, by enumerating classical tracks we're still going
to have problems with works that do not have discrete
track divisions built-in, like operas. Here there are
effecively an infinite number of titles within one
work. But then that is what the current state of
affairs is, so no loss.
i don't know my opera veryw ell, but aren't there clear divisions in to arias, etc?
with later operas like Wagner, etc. would just have the acts.
-Nate
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
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
