Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

As Frederic mentions, building all those objects will be an explosion in the database. (Also, if the object hierarchy isn't perfectly regular, it gets even messier.) Secondly, having all those objects can cause the same kinds of problems anyway. (I.e., someone can mistakenly merge the composition f

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Brian Schweitzer < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Bogdan Butnaru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:24 PM, Brian Schweitzer > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Let's say EditorA merges TrackX and TrackY. In

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Bogdan Butnaru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:24 PM, Brian Schweitzer > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Let's say EditorA merges TrackX and TrackY. In what you describe, > > that edit also would then create CompositionZ. The question is

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Bogdan Butnaru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (** Note that despite what Frederic said it is perfectly reasonable to > have a composition object without a compositor specified: See the > first example above: I might know two tracks have the same > composition, i.e. t

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

Oh, I didn't address your other point: newbies can't mess things because of the voting. The edit would be very much like a "merge release" edit: nothing is changed until the edit passes. Of course, this means you can't play with the "composition" object until the edit is accepted, but that's true

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:24 PM, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Let's say EditorA merges TrackX and TrackY. In what you describe, > that edit also would then create CompositionZ. The question is when > CompositionZ is created. To be most useful - and, afaik, the only the > wa

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:24 PM, Brian Schweitzer < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All off the top of my head, but I'm thinking having any object > automatically created might be great - if everyone knew how to merge > correctly - but as that's not going to ever be the case, it may end up > making m

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Bogdan Butnaru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Brian Schweitzer > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Bogdan Butnaru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Brian Schweitzer >

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Bogdan Butnaru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Brian Schweitzer > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, I guess we should draft an RFC, and pass th

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Bogdan Butnaru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Brian Schweitzer > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, I guess we should draft an RFC, and pass the concept. > > > > Nikki raised a point in IRC last night - would non-classical works

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I guess we should draft an RFC, and pass the concept. > > Nikki raised a point in IRC last night - would non-classical works be > under performer or composer? I could see them being really helpful in > cleaning

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

Well, I guess we should draft an RFC, and pass the concept. Nikki raised a point in IRC last night - would non-classical works be under performer or composer? I could see them being really helpful in cleaning up problems like Disney, or helping the jazz editors keep things straight - but both wou

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 2 Apr 2008 at 19:39, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > The work name, yes, but the language used to "encode" it, no. That's > what my concern is when we're talking about which language for the list, > and why I'd support a single language, not overall, but per individual > list. Sorry to revive the

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:25 PM, symphonick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/4/2, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:14 PM, symphonick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 2008/4/1, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

2008/4/2, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:14 PM, symphonick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2008/4/1, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:55 PM, symphonick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > 2008/3/31, Brian Schweitzer <[E

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:14 PM, symphonick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/4/1, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:55 PM, symphonick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 2008/3/31, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 10:5

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

2008/4/1, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:55 PM, symphonick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2008/3/31, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 10:50 PM, David K. Gasaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > [snip] > > > > > > I'm still v

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:55 PM, symphonick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/3/31, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 10:50 PM, David K. Gasaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > [snip] > > > > I'm still very curious about the language question. Are we choosing a

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

2008/3/31, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 10:50 PM, David K. Gasaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > > I'm still very curious about the language question. Are we choosing a > > single language for each composer? Or rather, a single list with only > > one entry f

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 10:50 PM, David K. Gasaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 30 Mar 2008 at 20:40, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > > * A single work title (with devolution of this for on-the-fly > > construction and translation, some time in the (far) future a > > possibility) > > There was a

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 30 Mar 2008 at 20:40, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > * A single work title (with devolution of this for on-the-fly > construction and translation, some time in the (far) future a > possibility) There was at one time an idea to use some defined character to separate the work title from the movement

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 8:23 PM, David K. Gasaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 25 Mar 2008 at 22:27, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > > You keep > > using a choice of wording that implies that these are somehow out in the > > grey lala land bordering on something we don't want. Sorry, but get > >

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 25 Mar 2008 at 22:27, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > You keep > using a choice of wording that implies that these are somehow out in the > grey lala land bordering on something we don't want. Sorry, but get > real. The problem here is that you've mistaken my intent behind the whole apache+user scr

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:56 PM, David K. Gasaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 24 Mar 2008 at 22:08, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > > Asking any editor, average or not, to install an apache server simply to > > make a script work seems frankly crazy to me, when there's a much much > > simpler w

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 24 Mar 2008 at 22:08, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > Asking any editor, average or not, to install an apache server simply to > make a script work seems frankly crazy to me, when there's a much much > simpler way that would allow for such a script to work and at the same > time take a lot of load of

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 9:24 PM, David K. Gasaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 23 Mar 2008 at 3:08, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > > That might be logical, except GreaseMonkey security (and I assume the > > Trident-GM emulators and UserJS as well?) specifically prevents > > accessing local files

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 23 Mar 2008 at 3:08, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > That might be logical, except GreaseMonkey security (and I assume the > Trident-GM emulators and UserJS as well?) specifically prevents > accessing local files. Fine, then install a local instance of apache or somesuch. These are not insurmoun

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 8:07 AM, David K. Gasaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 22 Mar 2008 at 23:23, David K. Gasaway wrote: > > > Let me be more be more clear: The links to the sample data I posted were > > a test for the ideas (suggested by Aaron) that the wiki pages could be > > used to addr

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 23-Mar-08, at 3:07 AM, David K. Gasaway wrote: > On 22 Mar 2008 at 23:23, David K. Gasaway wrote: > >> Let me be more be more clear: The links to the sample data I posted >> were >> a test for the ideas (suggested by Aaron) that the wiki pages could >> be >> used to address questions raised

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:23 AM, David K. Gasaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 22 Mar 2008 at 18:12, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > > Considering that folksonomy tags have no single purpose, and are > > intended to be a multi-use field, I don't know what you're objecting to > > here. > > They a

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 22 Mar 2008 at 23:23, David K. Gasaway wrote: > Let me be more be more clear: The links to the sample data I posted were > a test for the ideas (suggested by Aaron) that the wiki pages could be > used to address questions raised by me regarding translation, > organization, and the like. D'oh

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 22 Mar 2008 at 18:12, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > Considering that folksonomy tags have no single purpose, and are > intended to be a multi-use field, I don't know what you're objecting to > here. They are multi-purpose but they are not all-purpose. They are primarily used for social functio

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 2:47 PM, David K. Gasaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 22 Mar 2008 at 3:58, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > > If we have them in the wiki, and we write a script to make > > setting these ARs easy - be it a server script, or a GreaseMonkey/UserJS > > script - we'll be pulli

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 22 Mar 2008 at 3:58, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > If we have them in the wiki, and we write a script to make > setting these ARs easy - be it a server script, or a GreaseMonkey/UserJS > script - we'll be pulling these lists all the time. This is the first I've heard of trying to script a search

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 2:48 AM, David K. Gasaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5 Mar 2008 at 20:41, David K. Gasaway wrote: > > > On 5 Mar 2008 at 0:15, Aaron Cooper wrote: > > > > > I've loaded Beethoven's first 6 opuses at > > > http://test.musicbrainz.org/release/8ffd2068-a872-49b4-80f8-c

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 5 Mar 2008 at 20:41, David K. Gasaway wrote: > On 5 Mar 2008 at 0:15, Aaron Cooper wrote: > > > I've loaded Beethoven's first 6 opuses at > > http://test.musicbrainz.org/release/8ffd2068-a872-49b4-80f8-c4ce0a0f1b > > 19 .html > > Did you already create a wiki page as well? . I'll take th

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Sami Sundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > Since it was suggested I should read this discussion, I'm going through > it slowly :P > > > > I guess it depends on how we define "work". Is a "work" a unique > > composition? If so, then t

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

Brian Schweitzer wrote: Since it was suggested I should read this discussion, I'm going through it slowly :P > I guess it depends on how we define "work". Is a "work" a unique > composition? If so, then there ought to not be, imho, a listing also > in the covering artist's workslist. Or is a

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 11-Mar-08, at 11:54 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > I would have thought this: > > > > > > Track is an instance of TrackMaster >

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Brian Schweitzer < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would have thought this: > > > > > > Track is an instance of TrackMaster > > TrackMaster is a recording of Session > > Session is a per

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 11-Mar-08, at 8:00 AM, Mike Morrison wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > >> The only objection I recall is the wording of the AR for works lists > >> to tracks. Personally, it may sound

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 11-Mar-08, at 8:00 AM, Mike Morrison wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Brian Schweitzer wrote: >> The only objection I recall is the wording of the AR for works lists >> to tracks. Personally, it may sound overly academic, but I prefer >> "is >> an instance of" over "contains a recording of",

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > The only objection I recall is the wording of the AR for works lists > to tracks. Personally, it may sound overly academic, but I prefer "is > an instance of" over "contains a recording of", if only because I > think, if/when we do add sessions as th

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Chris B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/03/2008, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:19 AM, David K. Gasaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On 6 Mar 2008 at 0:27, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > > > > > > But > >

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 11/03/2008, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:19 AM, David K. Gasaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 6 Mar 2008 at 0:27, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > > > > But > > > what I think you're talking about I also addressed: > > > > > > "Now, so I'm no

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:19 AM, David K. Gasaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6 Mar 2008 at 0:27, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > > But > > what I think you're talking about I also addressed: > > > > "Now, so I'm not misunderstood, if we're dealing with a song like, say, > > In the Pines / Wh

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 6 Mar 2008 at 0:27, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > But > what I think you're talking about I also addressed: > > "Now, so I'm not misunderstood, if we're dealing with a song like, say, > In the Pines / Where Did You Sleep Last Night, where the song has > evolved with every other artist who has reco

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 4:42 AM, Chris B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i think these 'mutations' might still be possible. you just have to > use '{additional} lyrics' and '{additionally} arranged by' ARs were > appropriate. eg, someone might cover all along the watchtower, but it > might be the ve

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

i think these 'mutations' might still be possible. you just have to use '{additional} lyrics' and '{additionally} arranged by' ARs were appropriate. eg, someone might cover all along the watchtower, but it might be the version that hendrix arranged, so it's it has the cover AR to dylan's 'work list

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 11:38 PM, David K. Gasaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5 Mar 2008 at 17:07, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > > This would mean covers linking from sessions back to the originating > > artist - but not the inclusion of every cover within the works list of > > the covering ba

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 5 Mar 2008 at 17:07, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > This would mean covers linking from sessions back to the originating > artist - but not the inclusion of every cover within the works list of > the covering band. As we can't actually make that link yet - lacking > session entities - I would think

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 5 Mar 2008 at 0:15, Aaron Cooper wrote: > I've loaded Beethoven's first 6 opuses at > http://test.musicbrainz.org/release/8ffd2068-a872-49b4-80f8-c4ce0a0f1b19 > .html Did you already create a wiki page as well? -- -:-:- David K. Gasaway -:-:- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -:-:- Web: dave.gasaway.

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 5-Mar-08, at 5:07 PM, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> On 5-Mar-08, at 4:35 PM, David K. Gasaway wrote: >> >>> Brian Schweitzer wrote: >>> Thus, actually, why I'd opposed the implementation of the parody AR as

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 5-Mar-08, at 4:35 PM, David K. Gasaway wrote: > > > Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > > >> Thus, actually, why I'd opposed the implementation of the parody AR > >> as > >> an attribute to the cover AR. The cover AR is d

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 5-Mar-08, at 4:35 PM, David K. Gasaway wrote: > Brian Schweitzer wrote: > >> Thus, actually, why I'd opposed the implementation of the parody AR >> as >> an attribute to the cover AR. The cover AR is distinctly a "song >> instance"-"work listing" AR, linking from one artist's recording back

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

Brian Schweitzer wrote: > Thus, actually, why I'd opposed the implementation of the parody AR as > an attribute to the cover AR. The cover AR is distinctly a "song > instance"-"work listing" AR, linking from one artist's recording back > to another artist's work listing. I didn't get a clear p

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 5:22 AM, Olivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/3/4, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Was: Proposal: Add pre-NGS works lists, change the intent of CSG, > > > > modify the "version of " AR into an 'instance of' AR, > > I'm not sure I understand what you propos

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 4-Mar-08, at 11:09 PM, David K. Gasaway wrote: > On 3 Mar 2008 at 9:25, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > >> I suggest we could create each work in more than one language, as the >> need arises. > > The only concern I would have is organizing the lists to keep them > managable. If we can make your

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 3 Mar 2008 at 9:25, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > I suggest we could create each work in more than one language, as the > need arises. The only concern I would have is organizing the lists to keep them managable. If we can make your wiki idea workable (where we could have one page per langua

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 3 Mar 2008 at 9:57, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > The issue you mentioned is that the lists of works for a composer would > get huge and finding a particular work (or part of a work) would be > difficult. I am suggesting that we use the wiki to present structured > lists of the works. A little l

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4-Mar-08, at 8:02 AM, Andrew Conkling wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 4-Mar-08, at 8:02 AM, Andrew Conkling wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On 4-Mar-08, at 4:48 AM, Leiv Hellebo wrote: > > > Aaron Cooper wrote: > > On the

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 4-Mar-08, at 4:48 AM, Leiv Hellebo wrote: > > > > > Aaron Cooper wrote: > > > On the topic of languages, I think we should try to pi

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

I think it was Brian who, on IRC, showed me an example of using that strucuture for Chinese, which became truly non-sensical, so I'd say it isn't safe to use the same strucuture for other languages than English or similar languages. Philip On 3/4/08, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 4-Mar-08, at 7:08 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Leiv Hellebo > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Leiv Hellebo > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > Aaron Cooper w

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4-Mar-08, at 4:48 AM, Leiv Hellebo wrote: > > > Aaron Cooper wrote: > > On the topic of languages, I think we should try to pick one > >> language per composer (as we've done with the wiki works lists) > > > > One lang

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 4-Mar-08, at 4:48 AM, Leiv Hellebo wrote: > Aaron Cooper wrote: > On the topic of languages, I think we should try to pick one >> language per composer (as we've done with the wiki works lists) > > One language per work in Works lists sounds good. If the composer e.g. > lived abroad and used

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Leiv Hellebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Leiv Hellebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > Aaron Cooper wrote: > > On the topic of languages, I think we should try

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Leiv Hellebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > Aaron Cooper wrote: > On the topic of languages, I think we should try to pick one > > language per composer (as we've done with the wiki works list

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Leiv Hellebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Aaron Cooper wrote: > On the topic of languages, I think we should try to pick one > > language per composer (as we've done with the wiki works lists) > > One language per work in Works lists sounds good. If the composer e

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

2008/3/4, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Was: Proposal: Add pre-NGS works lists, change the intent of CSG, > > modify the "version of " AR into an 'instance of' AR, I'm not sure I understand what you propose here... Do you mean we could skip entirely the "later version" AR, because it's

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

Aaron Cooper wrote: On the topic of languages, I think we should try to pick one > language per composer (as we've done with the wiki works lists) One language per work in Works lists sounds good. If the composer e.g. lived abroad and used another language during that period, it's to be expecte

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As > Brian mentioned, it makes sense to move composition/cover/etc ARs to > the WorkLists while leaving production/recording/performance ARs on > the recordings. > I would suggest leaving the ability to point at tracks too.

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Chris B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 03/03/2008, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've had a chance to discuss with Lukáš in IRC to clarify what he > > meant - and based on that conversation, as he thinks real work lists > > are (near) immediat

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 03/03/2008, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've had a chance to discuss with Lukáš in IRC to clarify what he > meant - and based on that conversation, as he thinks real work lists > are (near) immediately doable, rather than using a hack to pull it off > via tracks, I withdraw

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 3-Mar-08, at 5:18 PM, symphonick wrote: > 2008/3/3, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> On 3-Mar-08, at 4:34 PM, symphonick wrote: >> >>> 2008/3/2, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Summary: Proposal: Add pre-NGS works lists, change the intent of CSG [snip] >>> >>> Interesting

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

2008/3/3, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 3-Mar-08, at 4:34 PM, symphonick wrote: > > > 2008/3/2, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Summary: > >> Proposal: Add pre-NGS works lists, change the intent of CSG [snip] > > > > Interesting! > > I'm listing 3 movements as they appear on t

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 3-Mar-08, at 4:34 PM, symphonick wrote: > 2008/3/2, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Summary: >> Proposal: Add pre-NGS works lists, change the intent of CSG [snip] > > Interesting! > I'm listing 3 movements as they appear on the cover ("real" examples). > Can you, for every mvt, list:

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

2008/3/2, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Summary: > Proposal: Add pre-NGS works lists, change the intent of CSG [snip] Interesting! I'm listing 3 movements as they appear on the cover ("real" examples). Can you, for every mvt, list: a) the "tracktitle" b) the "worklist/NGS"-title Just to

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 3-Mar-08, at 2:18 AM, David K. Gasaway wrote: > On 2 Mar 2008 at 22:59, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > >> I guess we will have to create the appropriate work listing. So an >> actual work (in the outside MB sense) may be represented by several >> overlapping work listings. > > Let's see if I und

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

I've had a chance to discuss with Lukáš in IRC to clarify what he meant - and based on that conversation, as he thinks real work lists are (near) immediately doable, rather than using a hack to pull it off via tracks, I withdraw that part of this RFC. I'd much rather have the real thing, if we can

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 4:03 AM, Lukáš Lalinský <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Ne, 2008-03-02 at 03:52 -0500, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > Details: > > I propose that we add a NAT-like listing to the database for each > > artist (not just in classical), as was discussed yesterday, > > essentiall

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Lukáš Lalinský <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frankly, I'd much rather spend a week or two on adding "something else > than tracks" (basically NGS works without attributes) to the database > and AR support for them, than abusing tracks for this. So long as there

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Ne, 2008-03-02 at 03:52 -0500, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > Details: > I propose that we add a NAT-like listing to the database for each > artist (not just in classical), as was discussed yesterday, > essentially using the exact same code that allows for NAT listings, to > allow for works lists, u

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:53 AM, David K. Gasaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2 Mar 2008 at 23:22, David K. Gasaway wrote: > > "Contains a recording of" is even better for those times when a track > > contains multiple parts. > > Come to think of it, I like "contains a performance of" even bett

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:42 AM, David K. Gasaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3 Mar 2008 at 9:30, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > > > Wiki again. The nice thing about the wiki idea is that we can use the > > pre-NGS time to test different ways to present the data and when NGS > > comes we will hav

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 2 Mar 2008 at 23:22, David K. Gasaway wrote: > "Contains a recording of" is even better for those times when a track > contains multiple parts. Come to think of it, I like "contains a performance of" even better. -- -:-:- David K. Gasaway -:-:- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -:-:- Web: dave.gasaway

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 3 Mar 2008 at 9:30, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > Wiki again. The nice thing about the wiki idea is that we can use the > pre-NGS time to test different ways to present the data and when NGS > comes we will have a better idea of how it should be done. I don't understand your solution. The wiki

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 8:18 AM, David K. Gasaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2 Mar 2008 at 22:59, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > > > I guess we will have to create the appropriate work listing. So an > > actual work (in the outside MB sense) may be represented by several > > overlapping work lis

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 8:03 AM, David K. Gasaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm liking this proposal _a lot_, but I'd like to list a few concerns > (in no particular order): > > 1) Language > > What language will the lists use? I touched on this in an earlier > reply about CSGS, but I can only

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 2 Mar 2008 at 12:28, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > Furthermore, "is an instance of" sounds overly academic, would "is a > recording of" work? "Contains a recording of" is even better for those times when a track contains multiple parts. -- -:-:- David K. Gasaway -:-:- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 2 Mar 2008 at 22:59, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > I guess we will have to create the appropriate work listing. So an > actual work (in the outside MB sense) may be represented by several > overlapping work listings. Let's see if I understand correctly. If a movement is split across tracks, w

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

I'm liking this proposal _a lot_, but I'd like to list a few concerns (in no particular order): 1) Language What language will the lists use? I touched on this in an earlier reply about CSGS, but I can only assume the same issues will present in these works lists. I can handle English, Germa

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - this is not really a CSG proposal, since as Brian wrote, the actual > track titles would be entered as they are printed. It would even restrict > the CSG to the work list, thus allowing users who don't know anything

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Rob Keeney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 3:52 AM, Brian Schweitzer < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I further propose that such works listings ought to be strictly for a > > single movement - no additional listings just for combo-tr

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 3:52 AM, Brian Schweitzer < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I further propose that such works listings ought to be strictly for a > single movement - no additional listings just for combo-tracks, as > they are handled by the instance of AR. How would the AR work if the recor

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Brian Schweitzer > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I further propose that a the "earliest version of" AR be changes to > > "is an instance of", to allow tracks on releases to be linked

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On 2-Mar-08, at 9:11 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Chad Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > Will taggers be disabled from tagging against them somehow? How will > we > vote on their addition/removal? > I don't see what is scary here. A few technical issue

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Chad Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Depending on the implementation, this sounds like it could become a very > unmaintainable and regrettable hack to me if not thought through very > clearly. Works lists for all artists in big unmaintainable lists? We > current

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Furthermore, "is an instance of" sounds overly academic, would "is a > recording of" work? I agree. -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-

  1   2   >