[mb-style] Agree, and more detailed proposal [was: Re: Composition/Performer/Production ARs at Release or Track level? - PROPOSAL]

[Lauri Watts]

On Jan 3, 2008 2:52 PM, Bram van Dijk

>
> On another note, I think that the "quarrel" here is also a bit about
> what musicbrainz is. Either a database for tagging mp3 files, or an
> encyclopedia of music.
>
> If it is just a means of tagging MP3 files, there is no need for
> release-level AR's, unless they propagate to tracks. And if they
> propagate to tracks, an AR should only be added at the release level if
> it should propagate to each track. (view 1)
>
> While those who think of musicbrainz as an encyclopedia think that a
> release-level credit should be documented, even if it does not propagate
> to each track. (view 2)
>
> Bram

Ahh, if only there were 2.

A lot of the people involved in this discussion are new to me, some
have said they are new to MB.  So bear with my little tangent here.

MB is rarely 'binary'.  There's never 'just two' points of view.  Just
because I disagree with someone on one point, doesn't mean I disagree
on all others, or even any others.  And I'm just one person, MB is a
rich community with many and sometimes quite surprising opinions on
everything under the sun.

* I do think release level entries should be documented, I do not
consider MB just a 'place to tag'.
* I don't think 'an AR' is the only place that anything can be
documented.  I think something only in an annotation is actually
documented, perhaps not optimally, but infinitely flexibly.
* I do presume that _because_ AR's are being propagated, anything that
is specifically AR'ed has had a higher standard of fact checking
applied by the editor who put it there, and they did it to the highest
possible level of precision, so release level really meant 'applies to
every track' or the release as a whole.
* I do think if data is ambiguous or incomplete, it's better to
document clearly what is known, and where it's known from, in an
annotation, than to add fuzzy data to the AR's.
* I think it's better to add only actually known information to the DB
relationships, because it's always easier to add than to clean data.

Those are several separate discrete opinions, and they don't
necessarily inform each other.  I know a lot of people are with me
until the last sentence.  Or disagree that annotations are acceptable
data stores but agree with the rest.  Or disagree with the first and
last statement, but not the others. Or just don't agree with me on any
of that.

It's very helpful here to deal with each statement someone makes
independently, and not jump to an assumption how they must think about
everything else to do with MB, based on their point of view in one
debate, or try to fit everyone into two opposing boxes.  It'd be a lot
easier if there were just two points of view, but there never is.

It's also helpful to not assume people hate you if they disagree.  We
don't.  And none of this is targeted at anyone in particular,
including the author of the post I'm replying to, it's just
generalities.

-- 
Lauri Watts