Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

caller#6 wrote: > Chad Wilson wrote: >> On 25/02/2010 11:04 p.m., Nikki wrote: >> >>> I'd much rather see all entries in a release group linked to the same >>> entry (typically earliest). >>> >> >> Unfortunately doing this defeats one of the original benefits of the >> relationship as defi

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

Chad Wilson wrote: On 25/02/2010 11:04 p.m., Nikki wrote: I'd much rather see all entries in a release group linked to the same entry (typically earliest). Unfortunately doing this defeats one of the original benefits of the relationship as defined, which is to define a proper seque

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

Nikki wrote: Do you have > some examples of series which need a specific order but were released in > the wrong order see vol numbers and dates for this label: http://musicbrainz.org/label/c3dd9db0-5dd3-4fd8-b378-9cc60da967f2.html Volume 2 is released these days, some five years after vol 8. I

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

26.02.2010 19:42, Nikki wrote: > Chad Wilson wrote: >> Unfortunately doing this defeats one of the original benefits of the >> relationship as defined, which is to define a proper sequential order >> between the entries without relying on release events to infer order >> (and make possibly wrong as

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Nikki wrote: > Chad Wilson wrote: > > Unfortunately doing this defeats one of the original benefits of the > > relationship as defined, which is to define a proper sequential order > > between the entries without relying on release events to infer order > > (and

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

On 27/02/2010 12:30 a.m., Brian Schweitzer wrote: On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Kuno Woudt > wrote: On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 08:07:24PM +0800, Chad Wilson wrote: > My own apprehension was caused by a couple of factors: > > 1 - IIRC (and I may be wro

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

Chad Wilson wrote: > Unfortunately doing this defeats one of the original benefits of the > relationship as defined, which is to define a proper sequential order > between the entries without relying on release events to infer order > (and make possibly wrong assumptions about the "next" entry i

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Kuno Woudt wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 08:07:24PM +0800, Chad Wilson wrote: > > My own apprehension was caused by a couple of factors: > > > > 1 - IIRC (and I may be wrong) there didn't seem to be much wider > > discussion on the idea, or many people s

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 08:07:24PM +0800, Chad Wilson wrote: > My own apprehension was caused by a couple of factors: > > 1 - IIRC (and I may be wrong) there didn't seem to be much wider > discussion on the idea, or many people saying "yes, this is a good > idea". Is the concept of a Series

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

On 25/02/2010 11:04 p.m., Nikki wrote: > > I'd much rather see all entries in a release group linked to the same > entry (typically earliest). It makes it a lot easier for someone to see > which releases belong to the series (and we have release events if > people want to generate lists sorted by c

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

Chad Wilson wrote: > 1 - IIRC (and I may be wrong) there didn't seem to be much wider > discussion on the idea, or many people saying "yes, this is a good > idea". Is the concept of a Series well-defined enough? Are we opening a > can of worms of corner cases? > There will be cans of worms

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

1 - IIRC (and I may be wrong) there didn't seem to be much wider > discussion on the idea, or many people saying "yes, this is a good > idea". Is the concept of a Series well-defined enough? Are we opening a > can of worms of corner cases? > I think "series" itself is pretty well understood, an

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

Well, in the discussion section JDLH asked for the examples to be fleshed out, which probably could do with being done. My own apprehension was caused by a couple of factors: 1 - IIRC (and I may be wrong) there didn't seem to be much wider discussion on the idea, or many people saying "yes, t

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

I've had a read through the associated pages that have been created so far, and it seems to be pretty well thought out and documented. What information needs to be added (if any), for this to be appropriate for the RFC stage? On 23/02/2010 4:35 a.m., Chad Wilson wrote: > My apologies; I didn't

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

My apologies; I didn't see this message before replying to your other thread on mb-users. Kinda cross posting here. The follow-up to the below was the writing of http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Part_Of_Series_Relationship_Type and associated terminology page http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Series (lar

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

Johannes, Chad, or anyone else who was part of that off-line group, do you have any updates on this proposal, or has it been abandoned? Brian On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Jim DeLaHunt wrote: > > Hi, folks. > > I put on my Style Leader role, and asked Johannes to work with a small > group >

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

Hi, folks. I put on my Style Leader role, and asked Johannes to work with a small group off-line to improve this proposal in answer to this recent discussion. Chad agreed to be part of that small group. Does anyone else want to join them? Let me know by email to "style" at "musicbrainz.org", an

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

Kuno Woudt wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 09:22:15AM +0800, Chad Wilson wrote: > >> Sidenote: but does anyone actually know who is still around/active and >> actually has the authority to veto an RFV (other than luks, rob)? >> > Anyone can veto an RFV. > > (whoever does so will have to

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 09:22:15AM +0800, Chad Wilson wrote: > Sidenote: but does anyone actually know who is still around/active and > actually has the authority to veto an RFV (other than luks, rob)? Anyone can veto an RFV. (whoever does so will have to defend his/her position though, see h

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 3:22 AM, Chad Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sidenote: but does anyone actually know who is still around/active and > actually has the authority to veto an RFV (other than luks, rob)? Um, isn't the idea that anyone can veto an RFV? The powers that be only step in if th

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

Sidenote: but does anyone actually know who is still around/active and actually has the authority to veto an RFV (other than luks, rob)? While I do not object to the AR in principle, I am concerned about it being implemented in its current state of documentation, especially regarding the term "

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

OK, I should have read first and asked later :) On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Johannes Dewender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 15. Oktober 2008 schrieb Philip Jägenstedt: >> How is one supposed to handle the situation where a volume consists >> of several discs? There are plently of

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

Am Mittwoch, 15. Oktober 2008 schrieb Philip Jägenstedt: > How is one supposed to handle the situation where a volume consists > of several discs? There are plently of releases like this: > http://musicbrainz.org/search/textsearch.html?query=volume+disc&type= >release&limit=25&handlearguments=1 We

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

How is one supposed to handle the situation where a volume consists of several discs? There are plently of releases like this: http://musicbrainz.org/search/textsearch.html?query=volume+disc&type=release&limit=25&handlearguments=1 Philip On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Johannes Dewender <[EMAIL

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

Thanks for the evaluation. Sorry that it took a while, but I was busy. I corrected the proposal a bit, taking out some considerations and elaborating a bit on gaps: Similary to the set AR I would like to see a series AR. Series have quite similar properties. A series: The Return of the Rock Th

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

Johannes: Thank you for making this proposal. My impression is that no strong objections emerged in the RFC discussion. So it's good to proceed to RFV. However, I'm a bit concerned that you are not completely clear about what specifically you are proposing. You are saying "we could use the exac

[mb-style] RFV: Part of series relationship

Hello, Similary to the set AR I would like to see a series AR. Series have quite similar properties. The last comment on the corresponding RFC is more than two weeks old, so I start a RFV for the series AR. The text ist mostly the same as for the RFC, but I fixed the wording to be more series-l