Re: [mb-style] RFC: ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle

2006/10/10, David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 10:47:26PM -0400, Dave Smey wrote:> On Mon, October 9, 2006 8:11 pm, David Gibson said:> >> > Hrm.. except I don't think your draft really moves away from it - it> > just makes it implicit rather than explicit.  Yes, it is fuzzy

Re: [mb-style] RFC: ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle

On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 10:47:26PM -0400, Dave Smey wrote: > On Mon, October 9, 2006 8:11 pm, David Gibson said: > > > > Hrm.. except I don't think your draft really moves away from it - it > > just makes it implicit rather than explicit. Yes, it is fuzzy and > > subjective, which makes life hard,

Re: [mb-style] RFC: ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle

On Mon, October 9, 2006 8:11 pm, David Gibson said: > > Hrm.. except I don't think your draft really moves away from it - it > just makes it implicit rather than explicit. Yes, it is fuzzy and > subjective, which makes life hard, but I don't think we can really get > away from that: the fact is th

Re: [mb-style] RFC: ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle

On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 11:17:30AM -0400, Dave Smey wrote: > On Mon, October 9, 2006 9:27 am, David Gibson said: > > > However, I think we should be a bit more > > explicit with this notion of the Release being "about the > > performer/performance" versus "about the works" (maybe someone can > > t

Re: [mb-style] RFC: ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle

On Mon, October 9, 2006 9:27 am, David Gibson said: > However, I think we should be a bit more > explicit with this notion of the Release being "about the > performer/performance" versus "about the works" (maybe someone can > think of better terms..) - that's pretty much the distinction we're > tr

Re: [mb-style] RFC: ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle

On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:09:14PM -0400, Dave Smey wrote: > Gah, the first link did not copy correctly (and was maybe incorrect to > begin with?) > > The "official" draft, posted by Don: > > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle Looks like progress to me. However, I think we

Re: [mb-style] RFC: ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle

On Fri, October 6, 2006 4:03 am, Frederic Da Vitoria said: >> >> I like the idea of giving examples of where the rule doesn't apply, but >> I >> suggest that Cortot/Thibaud/Casals is not the best example. OK, I'll keep working on that. It strikes me that that area is also a good place to refine

Re: [mb-style] RFC: ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle

2006/10/6, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 2006/10/6, Dave Smey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Gah, the first link did not copy correctly (and was maybe incorrect tobegin with?)The "official" draft, posted by Don: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle My new draft:http://wiki.musi

Re: [mb-style] RFC: ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle

2006/10/6, Dave Smey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Gah, the first link did not copy correctly (and was maybe incorrect tobegin with?)The "official" draft, posted by Don:http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle My new draft:http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/DaveSmey-DSI like the idea of giving examp

Re: [mb-style] RFC: ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle

Gah, the first link did not copy correctly (and was maybe incorrect to begin with?) The "official" draft, posted by Don: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle My new draft: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/DaveSmey -DS ___ Musicbrainz-

Re: [mb-style] RFC: ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle

(This is the post from over at the forums. I *really* would like to do serious RFC work in the forums and not here, but I am a man of my word.) First off, let me say that I am very grateful to Don Redman for taking this unsure RFC[?] and making it a real draft proposal on the wiki. The draft is

Re: [mb-style] RFC: ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle

On 10/5/06, Dave Smey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi gang, I have a started a new post on this subject on the new message forum. http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?pid=43#p43 It includes a link to a new draft. If anybody wants to object to migrating over there just email me and I will

[mb-style] RFC: ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle

Hi gang, I have a started a new post on this subject on the new message forum. http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?pid=43#p43 It includes a link to a new draft. If anybody wants to object to migrating over there just email me and I will repost here. -DS __

Re: [mb-style] RFC: ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle

Don Redman wrote: For other references see http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-January/thread.html#1371 ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists

Re: [mb-style] RFC: ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle

2006/10/3, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have entered your wording to (as rev 1) and then reformulated it a bit (rev 2). Let me just say this is a great and clean work. Point 3 is already what MB users are doing, and I believe (I may

Re: [mb-style] RFC: ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle

Um, I just finished logging my suggestions and objections into the wiki doc. Is that not what we were just invited to do? Lemme know and I will clean it out. On Tue, October 3, 2006 4:32 pm, Frederic Da Vitoria said: > > I'd rather disagree with point 2 for two reasons: > a - the limits will alw

Re: [mb-style] RFC: ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle

2006/10/3, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:59:25 +0200, Alexander Dupuy wrote:> Without speaking to the correctness or accuracy of your arguments, I'd> just point out that you're not likely to advance your cause very far > with attacks like these,or worded differently:I am ri

[mb-style] RFC: ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:59:25 +0200, Alexander Dupuy wrote: Without speaking to the correctness or accuracy of your arguments, I'd just point out that you're not likely to advance your cause very far with attacks like these, or worded differently: I am right of course, stop arguing already