Also forgot to post this one to the whole list ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adam Golding <adamgold...@gmail.com> Date: 2009/1/8 Subject: Re: [mb-style] The return of [clean up CSG]??? (was: Re: CSG issues (was: 'Piano Sonata / Concerto' vs. 'Sonata / Concerto for Piano)) To: Frederic Da Vitoria <davito...@gmail.com>
ok, how about "Recordable"? Since if something is impossible to record, it has no place in the DB, and if it's possible to record, it might as well be in the DB. This could apply to actual events recorded as well, such as a presidential address given on a certain date. so we can say: x is a 'Recordable' iff x is recordable! This is, I think, the absolute minimum structure required here. I'm all for introducing rigidity at the user level in the form of templates for certain genres and so on, btw... 2009/1/7 Frederic Da Vitoria <davito...@gmail.com> 2009/1/7 Adam Golding <adamgold...@gmail.com> > >> let's call them 'works', or perhaps we can find a more general name, which >> are not recordings, but which can stand in relations to recordings, and to >> other works. > > > I agree we need some other word for it. I think there has been already (as > always :-D ) on how they should be named. I'd like us to use something > different from "work". The WORK we are speaking of here is already an > abstract concept, something which is different from the what is meant by > this word usually in music. I agree, WORK maps to work, but using the same > word for both is as dangerous as mixing "map" and "city" :-) I have seen a > few quid pro quo because users mix release with Release. So let's try to use > a clearly different term. It could be MBWork or MB-Work > > -- > Frederic Da Vitoria > > Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - > http://www.april.org > >
_______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
