In my opinion, if the sub-work contains an AR that is also stored in the supra-work but with a different value then the sub-work AR should always take precedence and only it should be shown.
That said, it might be useful to have an attribute at the AR level where one could over-ride this and allow both to be shown and extracted (can't think of examples at this moment though...) Sebastien. On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Johannes Weißl <jar...@molb.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:17:21PM -0400, Calvin Walton wrote: > > 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. > > Exactly, I wanted to give a similar example with composition date. I've > seen a lot of examples where the movements have exact composition dates > (e.g. 1874-1876 and 1877-1878) and the entire work has 1874-1878. So > here the entire work kind of inherits the composition dates from the > contained sub-works. > > So I don't really see the benefit of just blindly copying ARs... > > > Johannes > > _______________________________________________ > 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
