2011/6/30, Frederic Da Vitoria <davito...@gmail.com>: > 2011/6/30, symphonick <symphon...@gmail.com>: >> 2011/6/30 Frederic Da Vitoria <davito...@gmail.com> >> >>> >>> But by removing the AR, you are saying that the recording is not from >>> the Planets, which is not inaccurate: it is completely false. >>> >> >> No, I am saying that it is not a recording of all the parts connected to >> the >> super-work, which is correct. > > You are saying both. Of course, you mean only that it is not complete. > Imagine a recording of a completely unrelated work named Planets too. > There would be no difference in MB between that unrelated recording > and our partial recording. They would have in common the same absence > of Work ARs. This is a huge loss of information. > > And you are not being quite honest: Hawke said he would flag the AR as > partial as soon as is would be technically possible :-) If I add > "partial" to your assertion, I get: "it is not a *partial* recording > of all the parts connected to the super-work" which is not correct > IMO. Sorry, I shouldn't have written that you weren't quite honest, maybe you forgot about "partial"
-- 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
