On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:19:23 +0200, derGraph wrote:
<Request for Veto>
Okay, there doesn't seem to be any consensus yet about an "evolved into"
relationship type, but at least I cannot recall any objections against a
relationship type
[artist] renamed to [artist] from [date]
[artist] renamed from [artist] from [date]
This relationship type should not replace the decision when to create a
new artist or when to use an alias, nor is it limited to groups or
persons. The only limitation would of course be that only one date
applies, where the start date is the most sensible choice.
I'll not abandon the "evolved" relationship type though, unless we
decide against it. ;-)
Er, wait.
(1) IIRC the closest to a consensus was that this AR should only apply to
groups. There is a different method for persons and IMO we should keep it.
(2) Different phrases were proposed for this new AR type:
evolved into <--> evolved from
is the/a predecessor of <--> is the/a successor of
was renamed to <--> was renamed from
I cannot recall
renamed to <--> renamed from (isn't this grammatically wrong?)
And if you add a date it should be "on {date}"
What were the arguments for and against these different wordings? Can you
please summarise these at least as much as to explain your choice? That
would be good RFV style :-)
I for myself have reread most of the discussion right now and cannot find
an argument agains the prdecessor/successor wording. Except the sub-thread
that tried to find a precise wording, which was dropped, because the
precise lineup change can be described with other ARs.
Therefore my refined proposal would be:
[artist] is a predecessor of [artist]
[artist] is a successor of [artist]
This AR applies to artist of type 'Group' only.
This AR type will not change the current handling (splitting/merging) of
groups. If they had one artist entry before, they should keep it. If
they had separate artist entries before, these should be linked by this
AR type.
This means:
- Lineup changes are already reflected by the membership ARs.
- If we use aliases, then we do not need this relationship
What do we do now? Veto on each other? ;-)
DonRedman
--
Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages:
Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation
around! :-)
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
