pabouk wrote: > > Rupert Swarbrick wrote >> >> pabouk<pabouk@> writes: >>> ... I would like to start the process of adding >>> work types for work parts (like movement, overture). As I am very new in >>> the >>> forum do you think it is appropriate for me to start the process? >> >> Eugh. In my opinion, something like "movement" shouldn't be a work >> type. What does movemnt mean? Well, probably something like "part of a >> larger work". I think we've already got that covered in our data model! > I agree that a movement is not a work but in MB > we store movements into work entities!
Rupert did not say that a movement is not a work, he said it shouldn't be a work *type*. To me a part of a work is still a work so I see nothing wrong with storing parts as work entities. Simon _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
