Johannes: Thank you for making this proposal. My impression is that no strong objections emerged in the RFC discussion. So it's good to proceed to RFV.
However, I'm a bit concerned that you are not completely clear about what specifically you are proposing. You are saying "we could use the exact same AR for a set and a series", but I think you are proposing that we not do this, and use a different AR. You say "It would also be possible to have a checkbox...", but again I think you are not proposing this. What should we do about gaps? Could you rewrite that paragraph with a statement of what people should do? Imagine you are writing the wiki page that explains this AR, and tells ordinary contributors how to use it. I have "Complete works of Bach, Volume 15", "Complete works of Bach, Volume 16", and "Complete Works of Bach, Volume 28", but no others. Should i use this AR? What do I do about the missing Volumes 1-14 and 17-27? Could I ask you to rewrite this message, saying exactly what you propose, and leaving out mention of what you do not propose? Think of a developer reading this message and trying to implement the proposal. Will it be clear what to do? I'm also interested in technical feasibility. Could someone who is able to implement the AR take a look at this and tell us if this looks well-specified and feasible? Johannes Dewender wrote: > > Hello, > > Similary to the set AR I would like to see a series AR. Series have > quite similar properties. > The last comment on the corresponding RFC is more than two weeks old, so > I start a RFV for the series AR. The text ist mostly the same as for > the RFC, but I fixed the wording to be more series-like. > RFC: > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2008-September/007113.html > > > A series: > The Return of the Rock > The Return of the Rock, Volume 2 > http://musicbrainz.org/release/5d0df9bf-b51c-4644-8655-35c1c04362b5.html > http://musicbrainz.org/release/c08df278-87e2-4cce-a93d-fa6e8d66e23d.html > > A bigger series: > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Series/CafeDelMar > (note: only the 14 official volumes would use this AR) > > > Technically, we could use the exact same AR for a set and a series. > However, the wording for the set AR does not permit such a usage and it > would help the semantics later when there is an extra AR for series. > It would also be possible to have a checkbox for "series" or a > radiobox for set and series. > If we want to print a name of a set or series, this would be the name of > the first release, stripping disc and volume information. The first > release is automatically the one without a predecessor. (see problems > with gaps below) > > Differences: > Obviously, the word set should get changed to series then. > The "optional/bonus" option doesn't make sense for a series. > Sets consists of usually 2 or maybe 3 discs, series can consist of a lot > more. This might make a difference, when we want to list all of them > fast, see "problems". > > Wording: > [A] is part of a series, the next release in the series is [B] > [B] is part of a series, the previous release in the series is [A] > > Additional rules: > In cases of multi-disc releases that are part of the series: Only the > first disc in a set should get linked to the first disc of the next > release in the series. > If there are multiple versions of a release, only the > first/original/main releases get linked and the other releases attached > with other ARs. > > Problems: > One might be interested to list all the items of a set and likewise all > the releases in a series. It might not be cheap to list all 20 > releases, because we need 20 queries, unless I am missing a feature > that can do this as fast as selecting all rows with a certain property. > The same is true for a 50 disc classic box set, though. > > It might not be uncommon, that we will have gaps in the data, meaning we > have a bunch of releases in order and then there is this one release > that is not in the DB, so we can't link it to the next bunch, creating > two different series in terms of our logic. > We should annotate this, providing a link to the next bunch. It might > also be wise to try and find enough information to add the missing > releases. > > > Implementation: > I can do the wiki stuff, when it is clear that such a thing is > implemented, but I can't create the AR myself, so some help from > a "dev" would be needed. > I can also do the wiki rightaway if this helps. > ----- -- http://jdlh.com/ Jim DeLaHunt , Vancouver, Canada • http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/JimDeLaHunt -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/RFV%3A-Part-of-series-relationship-tp19918956s2885p19938913.html Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
