Lemire, Sebastien 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.
Since relationships are available for all types of music and can't just be restricted to CSG, I think the consequences for non-classical music need to also be considered. I'm not convinced that it should be a separate page from the existing parts relationship page and right now I'd prefer to see a single page which explains when to use which version. Some things I'm still not clear on: Do we expect people to create standalone recordings to represent the entire recording? Do we expect people to copy the part relationships already on works to recordings, or is this only for cases where the recordings would all be linked to the same work? I don't understand what the link to Performance_Relationship_Type is supposed to mean either. Nikki _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
