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

[Bram van Dijk]

Now we are getting somewhere...

Lauri Watts schreef:
> 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.
>
>   
Agreed, just a thought that occurred to me, sorry if I offended you...

> * 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.
>   
Right, this is the main point I think. In this discussion there are some 
IMHO valid reason given to stop propagating AR's.
> * 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 disagree that a release level AR (take the example artist A performed 
drums on release B) is ambiguous of incomplete or something. On the 
track level this AR would not mean that A played at 1:15, there might be 
no drums in the first 2 minutes or something, it only means that 
somewhere in the track a drum was played by A.

At the release level we have the same, a drum, somewhere on the release, 
was played by A, not necessarily all the time, and not even necessarily 
on each track. Liner notes are more often than not given on the release 
level, and there is nothing fuzzy about them, they are just less 
detailed than we might wish.
> * 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.
>
>   
Like a said, a release-level credit that does not apply to each track is 
known information, not ill-researched, ambiguous or fuzzy, but verified 
known information.
> 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.
>
>