2011/6/6 Alex Mauer <ha...@hawkesnest.net> > On 06/06/2011 02:02 PM, Christopher Key wrote: > > On 06/06/2011 19:05, Alex Mauer wrote: > >> On 06/04/2011 07:36 PM, Simon Reinhardt wrote: > >>> One last point: What are we going to do about ordering of the parts? > You > >>> can't do it with the relationship so should the titles of the part > works > >>> have numbers in them? > >> I can’t think of any reason that the part ordering is important. > >> Tracklists provide the ordering where it is relevant, do they not? > >> > > See [2]. > > I understand that the parts *are* (usually) ordered, but I don’t see the > importance of having this order information reflected in the > relationship, or recorded in Musicbrainz. > > Compare to how this Recording[1] records the fact that it comprises two > works, without the relationships having an order. I would think that > aggregate Works would have a similar display. > > 1. > > http://musicbrainz.org/recording/65bc6bdc-607f-4c67-97ec-4dccd1b82259/relationships >
Funny, I could have used your example to illustrate why numbering could be useful :-) What if there existed another recording of the same pair of works but in the reverse order? Wouldn't order become relevant? To return to Works, if we use only brute alphabetical ordering, we might end up with lists like " End" followed by "Intro". Trying to put some order here seems a good idea. And sub-part order is definitely Artist Intent, so I don't think we can assume it has nothing to do in MB. -- 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
