On Fri, 2011-10-28 at 13:30 +0100, Rupert Swarbrick wrote: > Jim DeLaHunt <from.nab...@jdlh.com> writes: > > Summary: > > > > I propose defining an inheritance of relationships between any two Works > > joined by a Parts Relationship Type. This makes explicit the logical > > consequence of the Parts Relationship Type's meaning: that one Work entity > > is a part of another Work entity. Any Relationship which in any of the > > Work-relatedRelationship Family has its meaning inherited (except Parts > > Relationship Type, that would be too recursive). > > This is a great idea! Indeed, it would be even better if the MB software > had some support for showing this eg. a slightly differently formatted > copy of the inherited AR or something. > > About your question of whether all artist-work relationships should be > inherited: I think so, given the current list, and I can't think of any > plausible new artist-work relationships that would break this...
How would you handle, for example, the case where the entire work is known to be composed by two composers, A & B - but it is known that, for example, only A composed the prelude and only B the overture, which are parts of that entire work? You wouldn't want to inherit both of the composers from the top level work in that case. -- kepstin Calvin Walton <calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca> _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
