[mb-style] Re: RFC: Wording change on BonusDisc (was: [mb-users], Bonus discs: "Official" or "Promotion"?)

[StoneyBoh]

> From: Mike Morrison <mikemorr at umich.edu>
>
> This RFC proposes to change "ReleaseAttribute" to "ReleaseType" and 
> "attribute" to "type" in the sentence:
>
> "Also note that the ReleaseAttribute of bonus discs are not necessarily 
> the same as the release they were distributed with. Use the attribute 
> correct for the bonus disc on its own."
>
> on the page:
>
> http://musicbrainz.org/doc/BonusDisc
>
> Reasoning: See the thread quoted below; the most recent message in it is:
>
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2008-July/018118.html
>
>   
This implies then that the release status can never differ between the 
main release and the bonus.  I don't think that is universally true - at 
least not when considering the present way MBz handles release statuses 
(stati?)...

I would be surprised if there are not examples (although I can't 
immediately think of one) where an officially released disc is 
distributed also in some limited fashion with a promotional disc 
attached as a bonus - and that is the only way the bonus disc is 
available.  In that case, the bonus disc is clearly a promo, but the 
main disc is not.  I suppose one can argue that the "official disc" 
becomes a promo in that package, but we would not normally duplicate 
another entry in the database that just changes the status for that 
disc.  And, that is even arguable if the official disc still maintains 
the normal cat number and EAN in that package.

I don't know, maybe there are no such examples, but it is something to 
consider.  Perhaps there are other fringe cases to be considered.

stoney