Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: > > While the idea of work inheriting seems pretty reasonable, I wonder > how it would work for stuff like song-cycles, where each song is > actually a piece in its own right. Or to things like "2 piano sonatas, > Op. whatever". Would we store the information at the "group" level, or > at each work? Does this only count for movements? >
Well, the Parts Relationship Type already exists, and I'm not proposing to change its definition. Consider some song cycle. Should each song have the Parts Relationship Type "is part of" the song cycle today? If they aren't connected by Parts Relationship Type, then the Relationship Inheritance proposal doesn't apply to them. If they are connected, the Relationship Inheritance proposal helps an editor figure out whether a relationship could be applied to the song or the song cycle. I'd argue that right now, it's not clear to editors whether Relationships should be made at the "group" level or with each composition. Different editors are probably doing inconsistent things. I think defining the inheritance rules would create more consistency. Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: > > Also, in general, this shouldn't be made a guideline until a proper > way of handling works is developed. Although I understand the interest > on removing what is seen as data duplication, right now the machine > has no clear way of knowing it *is* data duplication and won't be able > to inherit the info for things like composer tags (or for display in > the page for that matter). > Interesting. Let me extend that thought a bit. Would it be better to decide that, for now, Relationships to a Work with a Parts Relationship Type relationship should be applied to all Works in that tree, i.e. to the parents, all children, and all children of all the parents? This lets our existing software work see the Relationships for now. Then we improve the server software to handle inheritance. Finally we go back and delete all the redundant ARs? My answer would be No. That approach wasn't my intention. I primarily want to be able new data correctly, and to give clear instructions to the MusicBrainz software developers about how to improve Partial Works Relationship Inheritance by the Web Server and Picard and the libraries etc. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz-mailing-lists.2986109.n2.nabble.com/RFC-339-Partial-Works-Relationship-Inheritance-tp6939661p6942682.html Sent from the Style discussions mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
