On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:47, Nikki <aei...@gmail.com> wrote: > Philip Jägenstedt wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 00:22, Nikki <aei...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Note that we're not allowed to rename relationships, so the actual name >>> of the relationship type will need to remain as "performance". The link >>> phrases can be updated of course. >> >> Do you mean that the names in the XML Web service mustn't change, or >> even what the dropdown box in our UI says? If only a part of what is >> visible to users is changed I think that the inconsistency is worse >> than the problem it fixes. > > The former (the dropdowns use the link phrases, hence all the curly > brackets). The name is shown on > http://musicbrainz.org/admin/linktype/recording-work however.
OK. I'm not sure I think changing the name partially is worth it, but I also don't care enough to argue about it. >>> I really don't see the point in changing the class, but since I think we >>> should get rid of the whole class concept (whatever it even is) anyway, >>> I don't care enough to argue against it. >> >> Can you elaborate on this? Is it recordings we shouldn't have, or a >> separation between different kinds of recordings? > > Hmm? The "class" is just a category in the wiki with a special name. Oh, I thought you were talking about something about the schema. -- Philip Jägenstedt _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
