Re: [mb-style] RFC: Transliterations/translations, again! (now on test.m
It doesn't seem to be active anymore. It was just the AR anyway, there wasn't a release status change yet. -Dustin (Kernesky97) chidade wrote: I know it's been a few months since this thread was active, but I'm a bit of a newbie at MB and definitely at this mailing list... Is the AR mentioned still active on the test server? Looking at all the links that everyone gave of their apparently successful attempts - I can't see any difference between them and the original server. Also, trying to make my own AR examples gave me only the Official, Promotion and Bootleg release types. Help? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-mb-style--RFC%3A-Transliterations-translations%2C-again%21-%28now-on-test.musicbrainz.org%29-tf2084745s2885.html#a6780696 Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Transliterations/translations, again! (now on test.m
I still think alternate would be best but I never had a problem with virtual either. Fits the existing wiki entry and everything related to it too. Simon Reinhardt wrote: Brian G wrote: again i point out that we need to call things what they are or else we will continue to create confusing BadTermonology which creates communication issues in the long run. call things what they are rather than coming up with some new meaning for an incorrect term. This is intended to be a release _status_ if I understood it correctly. So yes, the release may be a transliteration/translation mainly. But the release _status_ is not. There it just doesn't fit. In my eyes virtual would be the best description for a status. But I'm fine with other things, just your argument that it's a translation doesn't work any more then, so you can't put a preference on this. translation -- i don't see how it can become any more concise without losing meaning of what's actually going on. and that can include transliterations because transliteration is a translation that is literal. I'm quite sure this is wrong but I let the linguists elaborate on this. Simon (Shepard) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-mb-style--RFC%3A-Transliterations-translations%2C-again%21-%28now-on-test.musicbrainz.org%29-tf2084745s2885.html#a5821038 Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style forum at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Transliterations/translations, again! (now on test.m
We've come full circle. :P I like alternate because it leaves it open enough we can use it for other things we may think of later down the line that are similar enough to be grouped in the same area (the unicode versions for example). All of the different things that can be classified as alternate can be listed as verbose as you want in the help button next to the dropdown menu when editing so we can keep the actual classification down to a word or two. Nikki wrote: On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 03:27:28AM +0200, Schika wrote: How about transliterated/translated titles ? We were trying to come up with a short, concise way of saying it. :P --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-mb-style--RFC%3A-Transliterations-translations%2C-again%21-%28now-on-test.musicbrainz.org%29-tf2084745s2885.html#a5801291 Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style forum at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Transliterations/translations, again! (now on test.m
i like your suggestion more than alternative or whatever square peg people are trying to pound into a round hole. again i point out that we need to call things what they are or else we will continue to create confusing BadTermonology which creates communication issues in the long run. call things what they are rather than coming up with some new meaning for an incorrect term. translation -- i don't see how it can become any more concise without losing meaning of what's actually going on. and that can include transliterations because transliteration is a translation that is literal. -Brian Schika-2 wrote: How about transliterated/translated titles ? On 8/12/06, Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 06:40:22PM +0200, Jan van Thiel wrote: Of course, people can also misunderstand 'alternate text' as 'alternate lyrics'... Alternate titles? --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- .: NOP AND NIL :. .: Schika :. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-mb-style--RFC%3A-Transliterations-translations%2C-again%21-%28now-on-test.musicbrainz.org%29-tf2084745s2885.html#a5803701 Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style forum at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Transliterations/translations, again! (now on test.m
Brian G wrote: again i point out that we need to call things what they are or else we will continue to create confusing BadTermonology which creates communication issues in the long run. call things what they are rather than coming up with some new meaning for an incorrect term. This is intended to be a release _status_ if I understood it correctly. So yes, the release may be a transliteration/translation mainly. But the release _status_ is not. There it just doesn't fit. In my eyes virtual would be the best description for a status. But I'm fine with other things, just your argument that it's a translation doesn't work any more then, so you can't put a preference on this. translation -- i don't see how it can become any more concise without losing meaning of what's actually going on. and that can include transliterations because transliteration is a translation that is literal. I'm quite sure this is wrong but I let the linguists elaborate on this. Simon (Shepard) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Transliterations/translations, again! (now on test.m
On 8/14/06, Brian G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: translation -- i don't see how it can become any more concise without losing meaning of what's actually going on. and that can include transliterations because transliteration is a translation that is literal. Transliteration is the transscribing of text from one script to another, and has nothing to do with translation whatsoever. And this release status, from what I understand of the proposal, is also intended for things like transcoding (the process of transferring text from one code or cypher to another: in this case, from computer codepages a theoretical client computer cannot use into one that it can [the cannoical example in this thread is Unicode to ISO-Latin-1]). ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Transliterations/translations, again! (now on test.m
How about transliterated/translated titles ? On 8/12/06, Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 06:40:22PM +0200, Jan van Thiel wrote: Of course, people can also misunderstand 'alternate text' as 'alternate lyrics'... Alternate titles? --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- .: NOP AND NIL :. .: Schika :. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Transliterations/translations, again! (now on test.m
Kerensky97 wrote: And I agree with Gecks that that disclamier might be a little more than is needed; hopefully people realize that as a transl(iter)ation it should be identical to the other release just with different words in the tracks and title. I don't think that's what Gecks meant. He said it should not only be allowed for identical tracklistings (apart from transl(iter)ation), but also for tracklistings with bonus tracks or another track order. Here we have to be careful. How will NGS use this relationship and how will it use remaster relationships? Well, when we run the initial conversion to a new schema, it will observe relationships such as remaster and automatically create a release group in which it puts both. Apart from that, the relationships and releases stay untouched. When it encounters a transl-AR, it should check the release status: if both are official, put them in one release group and leave them as they are. If one is virtual/alternate/... and the other official, and the relationship points in the right direction (else someone made a mistake :)), then merge the virtual one into the official one and append the tracklisting as alternate titles. So if we allow this AR to be used for tracklistings which are different in the track order or have bonus tracks, then only for linking two official releases. A virtual release which is not about the exact same tracks should never be linked to an official release, because that can create wrong merging results when transforming the data to NGS! You might say, why should someone create a virtual release with a different track order? Well that perhaps not but consider this case: There's album A with 10 tracks and there's album B with 13 tracks which is just another edition of A with bonus tracks. Now you can have a transliteration A* of A and a transliteration B* of B. Imagine we just have A and B* in the database (because noone could find the original tracklisting of B yet but only a transliteration). Someone might think: oh, it's surely ok to create a relationship A is the original language/script track listing of B*, one is official, one is virtual, they are almost about the same tracks, can't be bad. But that would be a big mistake. So I think a disclaimer for that case is needed. Simon (Shepard) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Transliterations/translations, again! (now on test.m
Ah I see, if that's the case I fall back to what I said in one of the other threads, the virtual/alternate versions linked by AR should be identical, basically for the reasons you mentioned. This virtual/alternate release AR is basically tying stuff together that would usually be merged except that the alternate provides useful text translations and we don't want huge album annotations full of translations. Simon Reinhardt wrote: Kerensky97 wrote: And I agree with Gecks that that disclamier might be a little more than is needed; hopefully people realize that as a transl(iter)ation it should be identical to the other release just with different words in the tracks and title. I don't think that's what Gecks meant. He said it should not only be allowed for identical tracklistings (apart from transl(iter)ation), but also for tracklistings with bonus tracks or another track order. Here we have to be careful. How will NGS use this relationship and how will it use remaster relationships? Well, when we run the initial conversion to a new schema, it will observe relationships such as remaster and automatically create a release group in which it puts both. Apart from that, the relationships and releases stay untouched. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-mb-style--RFC%3A-Transliterations-translations%2C-again%21-%28now-on-test.musicbrainz.org%29-tf2084745s2885.html#a5767419 Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style forum at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Transliterations/translations, again! (now on test.m
Yeah I just wanted to see what it would be like in a test run. I like Alternate text too; I was thinking Alternate, or Alternate Version but text helps people from getting confused with track name changes vs. actual lyric changes. Nikki wrote: Like I said, it will become part of mo's release attribute restructuring. I don't know when that will be polished and implemented, but I can't see why it won't be. How about Alternate text? --Nikki -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-mb-style--RFC%3A-Transliterations-translations%2C-again%21-%28now-on-test.musicbrainz.org%29-tf2084745s2885.html#a5767519 Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style forum at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Transliterations/translations, again! (now on test.m
I like it, works great. How hard would it be to get “Alternate” or whatever listed in release type so we could also move these alternates into a separate group in the artist discog list? And I agree with Gecks that that disclamier might be a little more than is needed; hopefully people realize that as a transl(iter)ation it should be identical to the other release just with different words in the tracks and title. My test - http://test.musicbrainz.org/show/release/?releaseid=514127 Gecks wrote: On 10/08/06, Alexander Dupuy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This relationship should only be used when the number and order of tracks on the two albums are identical, and each of the titles corresponds in meaning. IMO, like a similar disclaimer in the 'mastered by' relationship, this isn't really neccesary. it's useful to see that album a is a remaster/translation of album b, even if the content is slightly different (as they often are with seperate releases - bonus tracks, etc). unless there's a compelling reason i've missed, of course! i've definitely seen people doing the remastered relationship between 2 slightly different tracklistings and no one seems to care about it. i did an test relationship - http://test.musicbrainz.org/show/release/relationships.html?releaseid=458471 - all seems fine :) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-mb-style--RFC%3A-Transliterations-translations%2C-again%21-%28now-on-test.musicbrainz.org%29-tf2084745s2885.html#a5753739 Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style forum at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Transliterations/translations, again! (now on test.m
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 03:23:34PM -0700, Kerensky97 wrote: I like it, works great. For me too: http://test.musicbrainz.org/release/d95466e6-d38c-4577-b6dd-894e1b8faa57.html How hard would it be to get “Alternate” or whatever listed in release type so we could also move these alternates into a separate group in the artist discog list? Like I said, it will become part of mo's release attribute restructuring. I don't know when that will be polished and implemented, but I can't see why it won't be. How about Alternate text? --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Transliterations/translations, again! (now on test.m
On 8/11/06, Kerensky97 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like it, works great. How hard would it be to get Alternate or whatever listed in release type so we could also move these alternates into a separate group in the artist discog list? And I agree with Gecks that that disclamier might be a little more than is needed; hopefully people realize that as a transl(iter)ation it should be identical to the other release just with different words in the tracks and title. My test - http://test.musicbrainz.org/show/release/?releaseid=514127 Gecks wrote: i did an test relationship - http://test.musicbrainz.org/show/release/relationships.html?releaseid=458471 - all seems fine :) Works fine for me: http://test.musicbrainz.org/release/e8ed760c-0aa7-44a5-9a8d-66a60edc9a74.html and now album annotations as in my exacmple are no longer needed. :) -- .: NOP AND NIL :. .: Schika :. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
