2011/6/7, Philipp Wolfer <ph.wol...@googlemail.com>: > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria > <davito...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I don't understand you. IMO this would be quasi-redundancy, adding >> extra layers with little benefit. What kind of benefit did you expect >> from NGS? > > I'm also concerned about abandoning the title normalization. I can see > reasons for using different release titles inside a single release > group (artist intent, slightly different version), but I don't see the > benefit in abandoning VolumeNumberStyle.
I don't think this would be abandoning VolumeNumberStyle, merely applying it to the ReleaseGroup level only, not to the Release. The benefit would be applying a consistent system to editing, Release = as printed, ReleaseGroup = normalized. One of the problems of MB is the number of rules we have to know in order to properly edit. Those rules were necessary because we had only one level. Some of those rules are being abandoned because NGS offers other ways to enter information than the Release and Track titles. Other rules should still be kept (for example as long as we don't have a specific field to enter the volume number, we'll need a VolumeNumberStyle), but we don't have to apply them to all level. Now that we have Releases and Release Groupe and Recordings and Works, we can apply the normalization to some levels and use a simpler input method for other levels. -- 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
