2010/11/13 Per Øyvind Øygard <per...@gmail.com> > On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:10:49 +0530, Jeroen Latour <f.j.lat...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > One option for disambiguating works could be to add a Comment field, in > > the > > same way that Artists have one. > > Considering that everything that computers need to know is in the ARs, > > such > > a free text field might be enough for us humans. > > > > Optionally, you could add a style guidelines suggesting that this field > > is > > filled with the composers/lyricists as above, if there are multiple > > versions > > to differentiate. However, leaving it a free text field allows editors to > > use their judgement in adding other information that will help to > > disambiguate the works. > > Comments can certainly work for works that aren't linked to a recording, > but for the majority of cases I think it would be more useful to use the > artists from the work-recording links to make searching/disambiguation > easier.
Most of the times, you are probably right. But even in non-classical, such a comment could useful, for example for works where the same authors would have re-written the work or written a different work with the same title (I am sure this has actually happened). So my preferred solution would be to use the disambiguation comment only when the authors are not enough. > There's no reason to create more fields/ars when we can infer the > information from data we already have. I'd also argue that for the > majority of cases recording artist is going to be a whole lot clearer than > composer-lyricist (outside of classical/soundtracks anyway). > What about jazz? -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) 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
