2011/6/10 Lemire, Sebastien <m...@benji99.ca> > One possible issue with the workgroup concept is that happens when the > work doesn't have any subgroups? > The workgroup will need to behave and have the exact same attributes > and relationships for this work. Or do we create a single subgroup > within the workgroup. It's getting complicated > > To be honest, I wasn't too hot of the idea of simply linking work > parts together at first, but I've come around to think it's probably > the best scenario because: > - if the mast work and subgroup are the same type of data, they can be > linked directly (and independently) from the recordings. > - We could theoretically have multiple layers of subgroups (as > mentioned prior for opera) > *The concept of a master work linked to subworks is just a possible implementation of the concept of workgroup. There are no difference if the hierarchy is included too. To get multiple layers suppose to enter the concept of work tree in MB... so to group work leafs on a same branch (and so on for opera !). *
> > This as long as: > - The sub-work inherits details from the master work,(Composer name, > work type, date information), but changes to the subgroups will need > to overwrite the master group (Sometimes parts will have different > composition dates, etc...) But if we're confident the information in > the master group is accurate, we should have the option to overwrite > the subgroups. Would inheriting through ARs between works involve > important rewrites to the code and structure of MB? Does the system > already allow for this possibility? > *About the ARs inheritance, the proposal was to inherit ARs from a parent work if the corresponding AR field is left blank at subwork level. That permits to change a composition date of a subpart if necessary. A script should permit to clear the subworks ARs.* > > - We can at some point remove the master work name from the subgroup > ie: Master group: Chopiniana, Op. 46: and subgroup: II. Nocturne > (we'll need some a different more flexible method to display the data) > *The removal of master work name (Part, act, scene,...) should be possible if the notion of work tree is introduced. * > > Anyway my thoughts, sorry for rehashing what I and others have already > said here and in other places, putting my thoughts together on this :) > > Sebastien > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:41 AM, caramel <carame...@ymail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > >> Not only it is not easy, I believe it also is not desirable. The > semantic > >> difference between a work and a work part / sub-work is tiny. The > history of > >> some movements shows that some composers conceive the movements > >> independently and later assemble them into a main work. And also, in the > >> other direction, some works are themselves parts of bigger works. I am > >> convinced that no stable, strict ontology is possible and that putting > >> everything in the same table, but marking in some way to which"level" > each > >> work belongs is the best way to manage this, because it is the most > painless > >> way to have everything we want (putting main works into the Works table > >> wouldn't necessarily generate any loss in functionality) and at the same > >> time it offers flexibility. > >> > > I agree that there is an underlying discussion about what we can consider > as > > a work or a part of work... It is why I present the workgroup as a > > "container" for subworks of a composition as well as works of a > collection. > > But at the final, the important thing is that all the individual works > are > > relied together. > > Back to the paradigm: > > As a MB editor, I would like to edit easily and fast the works to > populate > > the database with the right information... but without doing the same > tens > > of time (for each subworks). > > As a scientific OO coder in the "real life", I like to get order the > > information and to get it only once. I hate maintaining.. > > The concept of composition/collection exists. > > > > Today it is not easy to implement and main work could be entered and new > > "has part" ARs set to link the main work to the sub works. But there are > > still missing the possible ordering of subworks and the inheritance of > the > > ARs. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > > > > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style >
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
