A few comments to jacobbrett > > > *Makes adding/editing ARs easier, faster and more streamlined:* > > For example, at the moment, if a classical performance has 12 parts and 3 > > performers (say a pianist, conductor and orchestra), the ARs need to be > > added to every part (36 ARs). Approval and implementation of this RFC > > would > > give us the possibility to only have 3 ARs to enter or correct.The > > sub-parts/movements could get the ARs through inheritance. > > > I think RFC-339 must be decided before citing this as a pro.
Whether or not RFC-339 passes, it's inevitable that some form of inheritance will be implemented in Musicbrainz and when that time comes, structural changes such as what's proposed here will benefit from it. > *Regarding partial recordings on releases* > > There are often CDs which have partial recordings (for example most of > the > > tracks on this release which I'm currently editing: Les Grands Classiques > > d'Edgar : Encore > > Plus<http://musicbrainz.org/release/f8b78017-9b9a-48fa-8e9b-90310400a84b > >). > > The fact is that most of these "recorded parts" were actually recorded > > along with the remaining parts and released on other albums. Such > > recordings will simply be merged with other recordings > > > I disagree. There are obviously two distinct recordings, one of which is > intentionally edited--it is not useful for users to have these two > recordings muddled. I think you misunderstood me, there are often instances where an entire track is re-released on another release. It's usually because the release just wants to include the most important or famous movements from bigger classical works. There is no editing involved. These recordings should definitely be merged since it's the same performance, same recording, same performers, etc... *NOTE*: With RFC-341, I'm only proposing the relationship to link > > recordings in a hierarchy similar to works. A lot of the advantages I > > listed above are future benefits but they will and should be passed in > > separate RFCs after this one has passed. > > > Then, I have no opinion on this RFC at this time. I don't understand what I said in my last paragraph or two to make you say you have no opinion. Did you wish I include more in this RFC? Please let me know how I can improve my proposal so that I can get approval. Sebastien On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 6:22 AM, jacobbrett <jacobbr...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Lemire, Sebastien-2 wrote: > > > > I propose here an RFC to create a hierarchy in recordings similar as we > > have in the works tables. > > It expires in 7 days on Novemer 24th 2011. > > > > Because I haven't thought the consequences through for non-classical > > music, > > this RFC only applies with CSG. > > The proposal can be found here: > > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Recording_Parts_Relationship > > > > NOTE: This is the first time I created a wiki page (I shamelessly copied > > from the similar http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Parts_Relationship_Type). > > Please feel 100% to make modifications to it or let me know what I need > to > > modify, change or add. > > > > [snip] > > > > *Makes adding/editing ARs easier, faster and more streamlined:* > > For example, at the moment, if a classical performance has 12 parts and 3 > > performers (say a pianist, conductor and orchestra), the ARs need to be > > added to every part (36 ARs). Approval and implementation of this RFC > > would > > give us the possibility to only have 3 ARs to enter or correct.The > > sub-parts/movements could get the ARs through inheritance. > > > I think RFC-339 must be decided before citing this as a pro. > > Lemire, Sebastien-2 wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > *Regarding partial recordings on releases* > > There are often CDs which have partial recordings (for example most of > the > > tracks on this release which I'm currently editing: Les Grands Classiques > > d'Edgar : Encore > > Plus<http://musicbrainz.org/release/f8b78017-9b9a-48fa-8e9b-90310400a84b > >). > > The fact is that most of these "recorded parts" were actually recorded > > along with the remaining parts and released on other albums. Such > > recordings will simply be merged with other recordings > > > I disagree. There are obviously two distinct recordings, one of which is > intentionally edited--it is not useful for users to have these two > recordings muddled. > > Lemire, Sebastien-2 wrote: > > > > If they haven't and were indeed recorded alone, then a decision will need > > to be made in a future RFC. Personally, we should keep the same tree > > structure with perhaps an attribute at the supra-recording level that > > indicates that this performance is incomplete. > > > > *NOTE*: With RFC-341, I'm only proposing the relationship to link > > recordings in a hierarchy similar to works. A lot of the advantages I > > listed above are future benefits but they will and should be passed in > > separate RFCs after this one has passed. > > > Then, I have no opinion on this RFC at this time. > > Lemire, Sebastien-2 wrote: > > > > Sebastien > > _______________________________________________ > > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > > MusicBrainz-style@.musicbrainz > > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-341-CSG-Recording-parts-Relations-tp4081503p4082888.html > Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
