>It can group mastered tracks and still represent the audio in those tracks before mastering. I don't see anything mutually exclusive about that?
You're right. Neither define an exclusive thing. Either can be misinterpreted, particularly without any extra explanation. On 11 May 2013 13:57, Ben Ockmore <ben.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > And a MusicBrainz recording *is* a grouping of tracks. It *isn't* audio. > There's no audio stored in MB, so saying that a recording is audio is just > completely wrong. "Represents" can work, but then we aren't actually saying > what a recording is, which is an entity used to group tracks. > Well, I think this is a point of view issue. All of our definitions up until this last round described the recording as audio (the thing in the real world) rather than as a database entity designed to group other database entities, and we didn't seem to think that was a problem. If you look at the definitions given for Work and Artist you'll see they describe the thing in the real world, release and release group are more database oriented. However, I think you can quickly come unstuck with the database approach, because apart from on their specific definition page you'll think of them in more real world terms and use them as such. For example, you say a track has audio, but obviously the MusicBrainz entity doesn't. We know what you mean though. _______________________________________________ > 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
