Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes

2006-06-17 Thread Simon Reinhardt
Simon Reinhardt wrote: I propose adding CoRelationshipAttribute to EngineerRelationshipType (the main type, not all sub types) and within that to the sub type for mixers, and adding ExecutiveRelationshipAttribute to EngineerRelationshipType (again the main type only) as proposed by Schika. For

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes

2006-06-16 Thread Schika
On 6/14/06, Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that the following discussion arose from this: Schika had examples of liner notes which differentiate between a mixer and a mix engineer. Do we need that separated? well i think you have to be careful as the example (system 7) might

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes

2006-06-14 Thread Simon Reinhardt
Hi again, to sum it up so far: there have been no vetoes but some discussion that put parts of this back to the RFC stage, so I'll split it as follows... I propose adding CoRelationshipAttribute to EngineerRelationshipType (the main type, not all sub types) and within that to the sub type for

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes

2006-06-14 Thread Chris Bransden
On 14/06/06, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi again, to sum it up so far: there have been no vetoes but some discussion that put parts of this back to the RFC stage, so I'll split it as follows... I propose adding CoRelationshipAttribute to EngineerRelationshipType (the main type,

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes

2006-06-11 Thread Don Redman
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 22:50:21 +0200, Simon Reinhardt wrote: However, is that an addition, an agreement or a veto? ;) Was there I don't know because I must admit, that I have really lost track of the latest discussions on mb-style. If there has not been such a discussion, then a requesto

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes

2006-06-11 Thread Simon Reinhardt
Don Redman wrote: On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 22:50:21 +0200, Simon Reinhardt wrote: However, is that an addition, an agreement or a veto? ;) Was there I don't know because I must admit, that I have really lost track of the latest discussions on mb-style. If there has not been such a discussion,

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes

2006-06-11 Thread Chris Bransden
On 10/06/06, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I would like to add some attributes to some AR types and therefore request ok/veto for each of them: 1. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/OrchestraRelationshipType could need http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/GuestRelationshipAttribute -

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes

2006-06-11 Thread Simon Reinhardt
Chris Bransden wrote: more of a general comment, but are you implying that 'guest' means any performer who isn't a member of the group in question? only i've always thought of 'guest' only being appropriate when it's written as such in the liner. eg a studio guitarist isn't a 'guest', but some

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes

2006-06-10 Thread Schika
On 6/10/06, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello,I would like to add some attributes to some AR types and therefore request ok/veto for each of them:3. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/EngineerRelationshipType could need http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/CoRelationshipAttribute (page does not yet

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes

2006-06-10 Thread Simon Reinhardt
Schika wrote: I have some releases where is also mentioned executive engineer, recording engineer, mix engineer, remix engineer. executive engineer would be no problem to add too, since we also introduced that attribute for the producer type. Though recording engineered and mix engineered was

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes

2006-06-10 Thread Schika
On 6/10/06, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Schika wrote: I have some releases where is also mentioned executive engineer, recording engineer, mix engineer, remix engineer.executive engineer would be no problem to add too, since we also introduced that attribute for the producer type.