If the work was marked as a movement though somehow, it might make sense to mark it as a "movement of symphony" somehow through inheritance. I agree that we probably don't have a good place to show this with our current model and ui.
On 1 Nov 2011 15:20, "Rupert Swarbrick" <[email protected]> wrote: > Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren > <[email protected]> writes: > > A related thing that might fit here as it is also somehow an > > inheritance issue: there's still not a firm guideline for whether the > > work type (e.g. "symphony") should be set only for the full work or > > also for its parts / movements. I am pretty much on favour of using it > > only for full works, but what do other people think? > > I suppose the question is whether "symphony" should be read as a noun or > to mean the adjective "symphonic" (or "of a symphony", maybe). (And > similarly for the other work types. > > For me, these tags only really make sense on the top-level work. But > inheritance won't really help: if I don't think the first movement is a > symphony, I don't want it to inherit "symphony" from its parent either! > Surely the sensible thing to do is to leave the data model for work > types as-is[*] and change the interface to show "This is a part of a > <foo>" for the subworks. > > Rupert > > > [*] Modulo adding new types > > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style >
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list [email protected] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
