[mb-style] [Clean up CSG] Capitalization (and placement)

[David K. Gasaway]

On 11 Feb 2008 at 3:00, Brian Schweitzer wrote:

> This still has that same flaw in the theory though.  While a single
> catalogue number does identify a fully identifiable work, it does not
> identify a distinct unit.  It never was intended to identify one and
> only one distinct work.  It identifies  a collection of works which are
> all fully identifiable as variations upon the same work.

I admitted that, Brian.  By "distinct unit" I meant, more or less, the 
catalog number identifying that collection of "works". 

> Ok, but as we don't yet have the generic works system that would
> support notations such as this which could be passed along to a tagger
> or pulled out by someone using the datafeed, as it was put long ago in
> the very beginnings of CSG:

True.  The question is where we draw the line, since we cannot possibly 
return every miniscule piece of musically relevent information through 
to the tagger or the datafeed.  I made the proposal that we draw the 
line where the catalog ends.  What is your proposal?

> This is basic work identification.  Seriously, while I can understand,
> if not agree, with the argument that a single Kochel identification is
> enough, this is basic work identification.  It's as simple as that.

Indeed, but it all depends on what we choose to call a "work" and what 
we call a minor revision.  I would like to see a definition that is 
simple and unambiguous.

> Or, we give a single line of guidance such that the user knows what to
> look for (variant versions essentially never are on budget releases, and
> on the decent releases, are invariably noted as "~something special
> here!~" in the liner), and either by its presence or its absence know
> quite which listing to use.

I am not comfortable with all the assumptions made here.

-- 
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: dave at gasaway.org
-:-:- Web: dave.gasaway.org
-:-:- MusicBrainz: dkg