Re: [mb-style] Changing OtherVersionRelationshipType to OtherRecordingRelationshipType

2006-04-25 Thread Simon Reinhardt
Adam Golding wrote: i was discussing this in one of the classical threads--i repaste my suggestion here: I must say, I'm a bit confused by your proposal and don't understand all of it, probably because it's very classical-related. Again I'm pointing to the plans for the NextGenerationSchema

Re: [mb-style] Changing OtherVersionRelationshipType to OtherRecordingRelationshipType

2006-04-25 Thread Simon Reinhardt
Hey, so to sum it up: Bogdan said {live} and {acoustic} make not much sense in the relationship since they should be track attributes and I agree. Then I just found an album-album AR type live performance by chance (created because of http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/980) which is not yet

Re: [mb-style] Changing OtherVersionRelationshipType to OtherRecordingRelationshipType

2006-04-25 Thread Simon Reinhardt
Bogdan Butnaru wrote: On 4/25/06, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - change Release is a live performance of Release, Release was performed live as Release to Release has later recording(s) Release, Release is a later recording of Release and update the one case using the live stuff

Re: [mb-style] Changing OtherVersionRelationshipType to OtherRecordingRelationshipType

2006-04-23 Thread Bogdan Butnaru
My issue is with the relation attributes. There is any number of attributes that differentiate two different recordings of tracks, see [A] for a partial list. Why we should select just live and acoustic is rather mysterious to me. [A] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClarifyExtraTitleInformation On