On 8/9/06, Brian G. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
is "virtual" really the best name for the release type? rather than using a word and forcing a new meaning why not call it what it really is.. a translation. i don't think mb needs anymore confusing BadTerminology
Agreed, agreed and agreed. I'm uneasy about this proposal, because it splits the data about the exact same release. PUIDs, ARs, DiscIDs etc are tied to one release. Compare the metadata surrounding http://musicbrainz.org/album/0900aa86-9bbd-4424-b0dd-bfd2942ea02f.html and http://musicbrainz.org/album/f470c26b-0beb-44d0-b49e-4caa02379b76.html. They've got different DiscIDs associated (10 on one, 2 on the other, no cross-over), so which titles you get when you lookup a disk are, essentially, random. One has an album AR. The other has a track AR. And the associated PUIDs on tracks differ. It's a mess, and all because music geeks want their MP3s tagged in different ways. Encouraging this kind of split is A Bad Idea, in my eyes. Either do this with a DB schema-change, or not at all, IMO. Rod. -- :: Rod Begbie :: http://groovymother.com/ :: _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
