[mb-style] % in URL Relationships
Hello, A discussion started on http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=4161538 has prompted me to bring this up here on the list because we may need some guidelines written for the use of % in URL ARs. OpenDataRelationshipClass currently has nothing regarding the use of any special characters in URLs. By default, Wikipedia URLs use %28 and %29 to represent ( and ) and %26 for &. No one other than a power-user will know that Wikipedia URLs can be converted to one without % using the character the %nn represents. For example, for the band Cameo, Wikipedia defaults to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameo_%28band%29 but we can use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameo_(band) to reach the same information. Note that in MB's interface, the last ) is not dropped as it is here in this email so it's perfectly usable. Unfortunately though, this conversion cannot be done with Discogs URLs. http://www.discogs.com/artist/Emerson,+Lake+%26+Palmer is unreachable using http://www.discogs.com/artist/Emerson,+Lake+&+Palmer. So what should be the norm? Since I'm currently seeing % URLs all over MusicBrainz, I have to wonder first, what the problem is (I suspect it's an encoding issue), second, how do we standardize the process when different sites use different standards, and third, how can we expect a regular user to have the aforethought to convert % URLs? It's certainly nothing I would have thought of if clutcher2 hadn't brought it to my attention. I mean, I just copy the URL from the browser address bar and paste it into MusicBrainz like everyone else does, right? Cheers! Paula (spacefish) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Some capitalization issues
Next point I want to clarify is the following situation: How would you capitalize (put it to lower case to not influence you ;) ) the song title "the other half (of me)"? Guess case produces "The Other Half (Of Me)" which looks ugly in my eyes. To me the part in paranthesis continues the title so I just ignore the paranthesis and capitalize as if they weren't there, so I title it "The Other Half (of Me)". I don't do it the other way round though because in this case the part in paranthesis is less important, so I do "(I'm a) Lonely Man" but "(I'm) A Lonely Man". (Just to clarify this: with "other way round" I don't mean that the paranthesis are in front of the title now but that the "A" is in the main title) At least for this I hope to get some support because it was not even my idea. ;) Yes, I agree all around here. Actually I even thought this was official. DonRedman Yeah, it's been brought up by John (zeroGravitas), discussed and unanimously agreed upon before, though I;m not sure if it's been stuck in the wiki. Michelle _ ASUS M5 Ultra-slim lightweight is Now $1999 (was $2,999) http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Easus%2Ecom%2Eau%2F&_t=752129232&_r=Hotmail_tagline_23Nov05&_m=EXT ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] PersonalAssociationRelationshipClass & the goal of MB
On 1/29/06, Steve Wyles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I feel that if there is a direct relationship where ONE of the 'artists' > is 'musically' required, we should create relationships to one level. > > We wouldn't go further and add more marriage relationships to > Debbie Rowe (unless the person she marries is also a musical artist). > > What do people think? As argued on IRC, I see this kind of information as irrelevant in the context of MusicBrainz. It would be an idea to expand the artist information with places and personal relationships to "normal" people, or even add a real person entity that describes real world individuals (no performance names, no groups, no fictional artists, etc.) with some interesting background info, which could list partners of the person. But I don't like creating _artist_ entries for people that are neither artist nor have have nything to do with the _music_, that is the main aspect of MusicBrainz. #Fuchs ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Some capitalization issues
On 1/29/06, Simon Reinhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The first thing is capitalization of the words intro, outro and reprise > in paranthesis. Guess case puts them to lower case. I disagree with > this. In most cases it's not version info as in "this song is an edit of > another song". For the word intro I can see two cases: > 1. "Foo (Intro)" means "Foo" is the intro of the album, > 2. "Foo (Intro)" means it is the intro to the song "Foo" which comes > after that in the tracklisting. 3. "Foo (Intro)" means the intro of Foo which sometimes happens on live recordings. Then it would be a version information. But anyway. When it is _no_ version title, than it has to be lowercase _always_ according to the guidelines. It's extra title information (aka a track annotation) which is capitalized in sentence mode. #Fuchs ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] arranging/orchestration/instrumentation
On 1/29/06, Lukáš Lalinský <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Could we add these subtypes for the 'arranged' relationship? > > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-November/021782.html I you can explain them with a bit more info than the standard "indicates that ... on ...", why not. Though I don't understand the difference between those two and between those and arranging in "general". #Fuchs ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] Tarragon, Style Council and the winds of change
Hi everyone! Tarragon has recently informed me that he wishes to step down as the leader of the Style Council. Given that he declared his tenure to be temporary when he helped us emerge from the SG5 debacle, this is not really a surprise. Tarragon: Thank you very much for your time and helping us out in a time of need. Should I ever get myself down to .au, I will buy you a fine dinner and a few rounds of drinks -- your efforts and support of this project have been phenomenal and I deeply appreciate everything you've done for MusicBrainz. Don Redman and I have been discussing the style council over the last couple of weeks and how we should proceed from here to fill the very large shoes left behind by Tarragon. We feel that Tarragon's work on the ChecklistForStyleChanges wiki page and the adoption of Trac for style issues has provided more structure for us to work out style issues. Given these two changes and the nebulous nature of the Style Council, we believe that it is time to iterate the concept and see if we can establish a system that is a little more decentralized and thus hopefully more scalable. From here on out, we would like to try a two-tiered approach that consists of these two roles: 1. The Elder: This person will make decisions when the community cannot reach consensus. The Elder will read mb-style and generally keep up with style happenings, but generally not get involved in day- to-day operations. Ideally the Elder will not act until the Secretary calls upon the Elder to act. When the Elder is called upon to act on an issues, the Elder may ask the proponents of a style issue to present their arguments for their approach and against the countering approach. These arguments should summarize the issue at hand and distill the essence of the issues in a concise manner that will allow the Elder to become informed of the nuances of the issue and make an informed decision. In essence, the Elder is a benevolent dictator. The position of the Elder is a permanent position. [1] 2. The Secretary: This person ensures that the style process moves forward and continues to work. The secretary remains neutral on style issues and will work to foster consensus on style issues. Should consensus not be reached, the secretary calls on the Elder to make a decision on a style issue. The secretary will play the role of the Elder's right hand in all style issues and will ensure that style rules are being followed and adjust style rules as necessary. This person will require people to check the ChecklistForStyleChanges, open and close issues, give final "yes"es to style changes if the community reaches consensus. Most of this will be administrative work and this position will rotate every three months. As the benevolent dictator of MusicBrainz, I hereby abolish the Style Council and assume the role of Elder. I choose Don Redman as my Secretary for the next three months. Thank you for all the folks who have participated in the Style Council in the past, but its time to move on and attempt a different structure that we use to deal with style problems. We hope that over the next three months we can set a number of precedents that match our actions here on the style mailing list. Our new Secretary, who is very well versed on social issues in all forms, says that our guiding principles should be: "Make rules by making things work along them. Never invent rules before things work. Rules should follow practice, not lead it." In the coming week Don will start by tackling open issues, resolving some and passing some on to me to decide. Mr. Secretary: Thank you for accepting this new job -- the stage is yours! Thanks! [1] Don and I are using Konrad Adenauer, post-war Germany's first chancellor as the example for the Elder. Adenauder had little to no precedents (or they were all really poor precedents) to follow when he started his job. Adenauer set many precedents for all of the chancellors to follow -- many of which are still in use today. More on Adenauer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Adenauer -- --ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot. Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --http://mayhem-chaos.net ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Some capitalization issues
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:22:58 +0100, Simon Reinhardt wrote: Hi! I think it's time that I bring some things to the mailing list to either make them more official or receive arguments against them... The first thing is capitalization of the words intro, outro and reprise in paranthesis. Guess case puts them to lower case. I disagree with this. In most cases it's not version info as in "this song is an edit of another song". For the word intro I can see two cases: 1. "Foo (Intro)" means "Foo" is the intro of the album, 2. "Foo (Intro)" means it is the intro to the song "Foo" which comes after that in the tracklisting. In the first case there isn't even another version of "Foo" so it's clearly no version info. In the second case it is related to the next track "Foo" but also not another version. "Bar (Reprise)" mostly means there was a song "Bar" before and this is related to it. Mostly it picks up the main theme of it again, so the songs have some similarity in the composition. But that does not mean the one is just another version of the other in my eyes. Another issue is that "instrumental" can mean version info (this is the instrumental version of the normal track) or not (this song is an instrumental but there is no version with vocals). In the latter case it would be similar to the intro/outro/reprise situation but I would still not capitalize it for consistency. Don't agree with that part. You are talking about very sublte differences regarding the context of the information in parantheses. And you want to encode this into subtle differences of capitalization. Why not leave everything lowercased and let Intellgent Humans (TM) figure out what it means in the specific circumstances? Additionally, I guess that there will be enough cases in which the distinction is not as easy as in your examples. Next point I want to clarify is the following situation: How would you capitalize (put it to lower case to not influence you ;) ) the song title "the other half (of me)"? Guess case produces "The Other Half (Of Me)" which looks ugly in my eyes. To me the part in paranthesis continues the title so I just ignore the paranthesis and capitalize as if they weren't there, so I title it "The Other Half (of Me)". I don't do it the other way round though because in this case the part in paranthesis is less important, so I do "(I'm a) Lonely Man" but "(I'm) A Lonely Man". (Just to clarify this: with "other way round" I don't mean that the paranthesis are in front of the title now but that the "A" is in the main title) At least for this I hope to get some support because it was not even my idea. ;) Yes, I agree all around here. Actually I even thought this was official. DonRedman -- Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages: Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation around! :-) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mailing] [mb-style] Some capitalization issues
Marco Sola wrote: On Sunday, January 29, 2006 1:22 PM, Simon Reinhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The first thing is capitalization of the words intro, outro and reprise in paranthesis. Guess case puts them to lower case. I disagree with this To me is proper, as we lower also remix and others and this is IMHO a way to state this is not really part of the title. And what if an album has two songs "Foo" and "Foo Reprise"? We manage also another exception about initial dots: how would you capitalize "...and that's no lie"? For us it's not a starting sentence so "and" should be lower. Agreed. Simon (Shepard) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] arranging/orchestration/instrumentation
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 09:30:00 +0100, Lukáš Lalinský wrote: Could we add these subtypes for the 'arranged' relationship? http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-November/021782.html I see no reason why we should not. DonRedman -- Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages: Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation around! :-) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] PersonalAssociationRelationshipClass & the goal of MB
> I feel that if there is a direct relationship where ONE of > the 'artists' > is 'musically' required, we should create relationships to one level. > > We wouldn't go further and add more marriage relationships to > Debbie Rowe (unless the person she marries is also a musical artist). > > What do people think? > > Steve (inhouseuk) Sounds okay to me. -- Cristov (wolfsong) The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mailing] [mb-style] Some capitalization issues
On Sunday, January 29, 2006 1:22 PM, Simon Reinhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The first thing is capitalization of the words intro, outro and > reprise in paranthesis. Guess case puts them to lower case. I > disagree with this To me is proper, as we lower also remix and others and this is IMHO a way to state this is not really part of the title. > How would you capitalize (put it to lower case to not influence you > ;) ) the song title "the other half (of me)"? Guess case produces > "The Other Half (Of Me)" which looks ugly in my eyes. To me the part > in paranthesis continues the title so I just ignore the paranthesis > and capitalize as if they weren't there, so I title it "The Other > Half (of Me)". Here I agree and with other italian moderator we inserted a rule like this in very first CapitaliationItalian issue, with examples. Since we work in SentenceMode this happens more often and the rule says that if the bracketed part is the following of the starting sentence should be lower, as in your example. But if it's something else should be considered another sentence and so upper. We manage also another exception about initial dots: how would you capitalize "...and that's no lie"? For us it's not a starting sentence so "and" should be lower. Ciao MArco / ClutchEr2 ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] Some capitalization issues
Hi! I think it's time that I bring some things to the mailing list to either make them more official or receive arguments against them... The first thing is capitalization of the words intro, outro and reprise in paranthesis. Guess case puts them to lower case. I disagree with this. In most cases it's not version info as in "this song is an edit of another song". For the word intro I can see two cases: 1. "Foo (Intro)" means "Foo" is the intro of the album, 2. "Foo (Intro)" means it is the intro to the song "Foo" which comes after that in the tracklisting. In the first case there isn't even another version of "Foo" so it's clearly no version info. In the second case it is related to the next track "Foo" but also not another version. "Bar (Reprise)" mostly means there was a song "Bar" before and this is related to it. Mostly it picks up the main theme of it again, so the songs have some similarity in the composition. But that does not mean the one is just another version of the other in my eyes. Another issue is that "instrumental" can mean version info (this is the instrumental version of the normal track) or not (this song is an instrumental but there is no version with vocals). In the latter case it would be similar to the intro/outro/reprise situation but I would still not capitalize it for consistency. Next point I want to clarify is the following situation: How would you capitalize (put it to lower case to not influence you ;) ) the song title "the other half (of me)"? Guess case produces "The Other Half (Of Me)" which looks ugly in my eyes. To me the part in paranthesis continues the title so I just ignore the paranthesis and capitalize as if they weren't there, so I title it "The Other Half (of Me)". I don't do it the other way round though because in this case the part in paranthesis is less important, so I do "(I'm a) Lonely Man" but "(I'm) A Lonely Man". (Just to clarify this: with "other way round" I don't mean that the paranthesis are in front of the title now but that the "A" is in the main title) At least for this I hope to get some support because it was not even my idea. ;) Simon (Shepard) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] PersonalAssociationRelationshipClass & the goal of MB
Paula Callesøe wrote: Steve Wyles wrote: I feel that if there is a direct relationship where ONE of the 'artists' is 'musically' required, we should create relationships to one level. We wouldn't go further and add more marriage relationships to Debbie Rowe (unless the person she marries is also a musical artist). This sounds reasonable to me. Given the MusicBrainz name, I wouldn't expect anything to find any relational info that wasn't musically oriented. Boy, that sentence was all screwy. :P Essentially, I just echoed Steve: a one-way musical requirement is reasonable. Paula (spacefish) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] PersonalAssociationRelationshipClass & the goal of MB
Steve Wyles wrote: I feel that if there is a direct relationship where ONE of the 'artists' is 'musically' required, we should create relationships to one level. We wouldn't go further and add more marriage relationships to Debbie Rowe (unless the person she marries is also a musical artist). This sounds reasonable to me. Given the MusicBrainz name, I wouldn't expect anything to find any relational info that wasn't musically oriented. Paula (spacefish) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] arranging/orchestration/instrumentation
Could we add these subtypes for the 'arranged' relationship? http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-November/021782.html ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
