After some discussion on IRC[1], there seems to be some agreement that
it would be useful to have a work-work relationship type to indicate
that one work is part of another. This holds especially true for
classical works where a piece is often divided into movements.
As such, this is the RFC for
2011/6/2 Alex Mauer
> After some discussion on IRC[1], there seems to be some agreement that
> it would be useful to have a work-work relationship type to indicate
> that one work is part of another. This holds especially true for
> classical works where a piece is often divided into movements.
On 06/01/2011 06:29 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> What would be the meaning of the start and end dates?
Er, nothing. That’s just the wiki template talking — there doesn’t seem
to be a way to disable the display of start/end date.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
_
2011/6/2 Alex Mauer
> On 06/01/2011 06:29 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> > What would be the meaning of the start and end dates?
>
> Er, nothing. That’s just the wiki template talking — there doesn’t seem
> to be a way to disable the display of start/end date.
>
Ok. +1, then :-)
--
Frederic
On 06/02/2011 12:34 AM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> After some discussion on IRC[1], there seems to be some agreement that
> it would be useful to have a work-work relationship type to indicate
> that one work is part of another. This holds especially true for
> classical works where a piece is often divi
On 06/02/2011 07:10 AM, Aurélien Mino wrote:
> 2. Make a clear distinction with the medley work-work AR: it may sound
> obvious, but I think it should be clarified.
Any suggestions on wording?
I think “where the composer split a work into multiple parts” covers
that, because a medley is not (eve
Hi,
Wow, it's been a long time since I've been signed up here. :-)
+1 on this proposal, it is much needed for progressive rock, some metal etc.
Reading the guidelines section I think later on we might also need an
attribute for the "recording performance of work" relationship so that we
can have
This AR could be useful but mostly when there are only few works related
together. I would prefer the concept of "Work group" instead with the
possibility for the works to inherit the ARs at the work group level.
For CSG, the number of sub-works can be several tens.
Hi
caramel wrote:
> This AR could be useful but mostly when there are only few works related
> together. I would prefer the concept of "Work group" instead with the
> possibility for the works to inherit the ARs at the work group level.
> For CSG, the number of sub-works can be several tens.
I'
On 06/04/2011 07:36 PM, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Wow, it's been a long time since I've been signed up here. :-)
>
> +1 on this proposal, it is much needed for progressive rock, some metal etc.
>
> Reading the guidelines section I think later on we might also need an
> attribute for the "
On 06/06/2011 19:05, Alex Mauer wrote:
> On 06/04/2011 07:36 PM, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Wow, it's been a long time since I've been signed up here. :-)
>>
>> +1 on this proposal, it is much needed for progressive rock, some metal etc.
>>
>> Reading the guidelines section I think later o
2011/6/6 Christopher Key
> On 06/06/2011 19:05, Alex Mauer wrote:
> > On 06/04/2011 07:36 PM, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Wow, it's been a long time since I've been signed up here. :-)
> >>
> >> +1 on this proposal, it is much needed for progressive rock, some metal
> etc.
> >>
> >>
On 06/06/2011 02:02 PM, Christopher Key wrote:
> On 06/06/2011 19:05, Alex Mauer wrote:
>> On 06/04/2011 07:36 PM, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
>>> One last point: What are we going to do about ordering of the parts? You
>>> can't do it with the relationship so should the titles of the part works
>>> hav
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 21:41:35 +0200, Alex Mauer
wrote:
> On 06/06/2011 02:02 PM, Christopher Key wrote:
>> On 06/06/2011 19:05, Alex Mauer wrote:
>>> On 06/04/2011 07:36 PM, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
One last point: What are we going to do about ordering of the parts?
You
can't do
2011/6/6 Alex Mauer
> On 06/06/2011 02:02 PM, Christopher Key wrote:
> > On 06/06/2011 19:05, Alex Mauer wrote:
> >> On 06/04/2011 07:36 PM, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
> >>> One last point: What are we going to do about ordering of the parts?
> You
> >>> can't do it with the relationship so should th
2011/6/6 Simon Reinhardt
> Hi
>
>
> caramel wrote:
>
>> This AR could be useful but mostly when there are only few works related
>> together. I would prefer the concept of "Work group" instead with the
>> possibility for the works to inherit the ARs at the work group level.
>> For CSG, the number
I don't know if this has been mentioned before (in that case I've missed
it), but I think we should be careful about inheriting ARs from the
aggregate work to the subworks.
Some works are left unfinished by a composer and finished by another,
which leads to different composers on different parts
2011/6/7, Maurits Meulenbelt :
> I don't know if this has been mentioned before (in that case I've missed
> it), but I think we should be careful about inheriting ARs from the
> aggregate work to the subworks.
> Some works are left unfinished by a composer and finished by another,
> which leads to
I propose to switch to the right discussion thread (RFC Works group) not to
change too much the original subject of this proposal even if they are
related.
2011/6/7 Frederic Da Vitoria
> 2011/6/7, Maurits Meulenbelt :
> > I don't know if this has been mentioned before (in that case I've missed
>
Christopher Key wrote:
> On 06/06/2011 19:05, Alex Mauer wrote:
>> On 06/04/2011 07:36 PM, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
>>> One last point: What are we going to do about ordering of the parts? You
>>> can't do it with the relationship so should the titles of the part works
>>> have numbers in them?
>
symphonick wrote:
> And, as Rob suggested, not having to repeat the main work title for all
> the subparts.
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2011-May/020578.html
Hmm, good point. This sounds like something that should be covered by the
guidelines for the relationship as
2011/6/7 Simon Reinhardt
> symphonick wrote:
> > And, as Rob suggested, not having to repeat the main work title for all
> > the subparts.
> >
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2011-May/020578.html
>
> Hmm, good point. This sounds like something that should be covered by
22 matches
Mail list logo
