Hi, Alex / Caller #6:
caller#6 wrote: > > The Work Group thread [1] talked about a mechanism for over-riding > global "parent" ARs with local "child" ARs.[2] > > [1] > http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-Concept-of-works-group-tp3535348p3535348.html > [2] would that mean we'd need a "null value" available to over-ride an > AR that doesn't apply to a "child"? > Thank you for the reference to this earlier discussion! I'll add it to my Background section. Reading the thread now, it seems to reinforce for me the value of RFC-339, to be clear about Partial Works Relationship Inheritance. caller#6 wrote: > > Jim, would your proposal work the same way? Or would you simply not set > a "parent" ARs unless it is true for all "children"? > RFC-339 doesn't propose to increase the expressive power of the MusicBrainz data model, it just clarifies what applying certain Relationships to certain Work entities means. It does not propose a "null value" to override a parent AR. In the MusicBrainz data model today, and after RFC-339, you would (as you say), simply not set a "parent" ARs unless it is true for all "children". -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz-mailing-lists.2986109.n2.nabble.com/RFC-339-Partial-Works-Relationship-Inheritance-tp6939661p6942781.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
