[mb-style] CSG compromise?

[Mike Morrison]

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
<snip>
> While there's perhaps some few 20th century classical composers
> someone might be able to point to, one thing classical composer
> generally have in common is that they didn't actually release LPs or
> CDs - or NATs.  Perhaps it'd be simple to create a NAT-type of list
> for use for works lists, I don't really know.  That would seem most
> optimal.  But lacking that, could we not just use the NAT entry for
> each classical composer to hold the works lists?  Create a new AR,
> something like "is an instance of" to link release tracks to the NAT
> tracks, store the CSG-style names in NATs and whatever the
> liner-liking people like in the releases?  I'd think it'd be pretty
> easy then to add an option to Picard/datafeed users/etc to allow them
> to travel up to that NAT to get the CSG title.  Then we also can more
> easily use the normal editing system, as well, to vet
> corrections/changes within the NAT-work lists, with the goal of those
> work lists being to make them the "complete" tiles.  When NGS comes
> around, all the links and such already will be in place, we just
> migrate them from the NAT listed track to a NGS entry for that work,
> and (perhaps in some automated fashion which says "this NGS entry is
> specifically the NAT entry we had over here") migrate those
> work-instance links over to NGS?
>
> It would allow the dual track titles, it would satisfy both types of
> data users, it would allow us now to start really working on
> correcting noted typos and errors in work lists, and it would allow
> us, likely 1-2 years ahead of time, to already start working on
> linking instances back to work-masters.
>
> Brian

I like this!

Mike