As Brant said, over time any group can have many different members.
I believe these categories must be manually assigned. (Think about larger
ensembles/orchestras.)
2014/1/25 Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen
> Den 25-01-2014 14:52, symphonick skrev:
> > If I understand you correctly; instead of selec
Den 25-01-2014 14:52, symphonick skrev:
> If I understand you correctly; instead of selecting "string quartet"
> from a list, the user should select type=group, instrument = violin,
> violin, viola, cello", number of members on stage = 4 (essentially a new
> attribute that means "quartet", or some
2014/1/25 Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen
> Den 23-01-2014 23:47, Ulrich Klauer skrev:
> > I am somewhat inclined to agree that a separate subtype of group is
> > justified that comprises the notion of "a larger instrumental/vocal
> > body where the identity of the individual members is considered les
Den 23-01-2014 23:47, Ulrich Klauer skrev:
> I am somewhat inclined to agree that a separate subtype of group is
> justified that comprises the notion of "a larger instrumental/vocal
> body where the identity of the individual members is considered less
> important". (Still subject to objecti
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Ulrich Klauer wrote:
> Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren:
>
> > Now that the orchestra attribute is going away (thankfully) we
> > should store this data where it belongs: on the artists. I would
> > like to add a few new
> > artist types to more clearly store this kind
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren:
> Now that the orchestra attribute is going away (thankfully) we
> should store this data where it belongs: on the artists. I would
> like to add a few new
> artist types to more clearly store this kind of info.
> As a minimum, I'd like the top level here of orchest
Sorry about that, but IMO we have to get the basic structure right from the
beginning. I suspect it will be hard to change later. I'm fine with
starting with a smaller subset.
2014/1/22 Frederic Da Vitoria
> 2014/1/22 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
>
>> Why are you suddenly trying to turn a pretty
2014/1/22 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
> Why are you suddenly trying to turn a pretty simple, small scale thing
> into a full ontology? I mean, that can be pretty cool I guess, but it's far
> more complicated than what I wanted, which is just a way to mark a few of
> the most common things...
>
Rig
Why are you suddenly trying to turn a pretty simple, small scale thing into
a full ontology? I mean, that can be pretty cool I guess, but it's far more
complicated than what I wanted, which is just a way to mark a few of the
most common things...
___
Musi
2014/1/22 Frederic Da Vitoria
> 2014/1/21 symphonick
>
>>
>> 2014/1/21 Frederic Da Vitoria
>>
>>> 2014/1/21 symphonick
>>>
One could also have the orchestras as sub-types of the general ensemble
types.
>>> Isn't this mixing different ontologies? Instrumental (mixed / s
2014/1/21 symphonick
>
> 2014/1/21 Frederic Da Vitoria
>
>> 2014/1/21 symphonick
>>
>>>
>>> One could also have the orchestras as sub-types of the general ensemble
>>> types.
>>>
>>>
>> Isn't this mixing different ontologies? Instrumental (mixed / string /
>> wind / brass) and size/complexity (
2014/1/21 Frederic Da Vitoria
> 2014/1/21 symphonick
>
>>
>> One could also have the orchestras as sub-types of the general ensemble
>> types.
>>
>>
> Isn't this mixing different ontologies? Instrumental (mixed / string /
> wind / brass) and size/complexity (symphony / chamber).
>
I suggested t
2014/1/21 symphonick
> Another issue is that "chamber ensemble" implies chamber music, which
> obviously doesn't suit jazz ensembles. (Note that you have to define the
> difference between a chamber ensemble and a chamber orchestra!)
>
> One possibility:
>
> *Orchestra
> **Chamber orchestra
> **S
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:56 PM, symphonick wrote:
>
>
>
> 2014/1/17 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
>
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Maurits wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with this on principle, but wouldn't the chamber orchestra
>>> sub-types become a huge list over time? With all the possible trio's
2014/1/17 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Maurits wrote:
>
>> I agree with this on principle, but wouldn't the chamber orchestra
>> sub-types become a huge list over time? With all the possible trio's,
>> quartets, quintets and whatnot for various possible instrument
2014/1/17 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Maurits wrote:
>
>> I agree with this on principle, but wouldn't the chamber orchestra
>> sub-types become a huge list over time? With all the possible trio's,
>> quartets, quintets and whatnot for various possible instrument
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Maurits wrote:
> I agree with this on principle, but wouldn't the chamber orchestra
> sub-types become a huge list over time? With all the possible trio's,
> quartets, quintets and whatnot for various possible instruments.
> Perhaps constrict it to the number?
M
2014/1/17 Maurits
> I agree with this on principle, but wouldn't the chamber orchestra
> sub-types become a huge list over time? With all the possible trio's,
> quartets, quintets and whatnot for various possible instruments.
> Perhaps constrict it to the number?
>
> Op vrijdag 17 januari 2014 13
I agree with this on principle, but wouldn't the chamber orchestra
sub-types become a huge list over time? With all the possible trio's,
quartets, quintets and whatnot for various possible instruments.
Perhaps constrict it to the number?
Maurits Meulenbelt
Op vrijdag 17 januari 2014 13:24:20,
On 17.1.2014 13:58, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
> Now that the orchestra attribute is going away (thankfully) we should
> store this data where it belongs: on the artists. I would like to add a
> few new artist types to more clearly store this kind of info.
+1 for this RFC.
--
ListMyCDs / T
Now that the orchestra attribute is going away (thankfully) we should store
this data where it belongs: on the artists. I would like to add a few new
artist types to more clearly store this kind of info.
As a minimum, I'd like the top level here of orchestra, choir and chamber
ensemble (ideally, o
21 matches
Mail list logo
