[mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

[Philip Jägenstedt]

I think this is all a pretty good fine which solves many problems for
users in both camps. Some additional thought:

Work lists should not have track times visible, or at least they
should not be editable. Also, it should not be possible to tag against
the work list (enforced by taggers I suppose) and adding PUID:s to the
works should certainly not be possible.

Furthermore, "is an instance of" sounds overly academic, would "is a
recording of" work?

Philip

On 3/2/08, Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:
> Summary:
>  Proposal: Add pre-NGS works lists, change the intent of CSG, modify
>  the "version of " AR into an 'instance of' AR, and change the
>  suggested target point for the "cover of", "parody of", "version of",
>  and composition-related ARs.
>
>  Developer impact: According to Robert, minimal and pretty easy,
>  basically reuses code already written
>
>  Benefits: Both "sides" of CSG get what they want, and the database in
>  general gains the ability to begin this type of work long before it's
>  eventual "true" implementation under NGS.  It also solves some of the
>  AR issues we have generally, not just in classical, by providing a
>  true "generic instance".
>
>  Details:
>  I propose that we add a NAT-like listing to the database for each
>  artist (not just in classical), as was discussed yesterday,
>  essentially using the exact same code that allows for NAT listings, to
>  allow for works lists, until such time as NGS develops to a point
>  where it obviates the need, when we can migrate those works lists to
>  NGS work listings.
>
>  ('work' here is used when 'movement' might be more correct, depending
>  on the particular work/movement being described within the list).
>
>  I further propose that CSG be then limited to those works lists, and
>  that classical releases now be listed using whatever is decided to be
>  the "on the liner" text.
>
>  I further propose that CSG then, in the rewrite, be aimed towards
>  comprehensiveness, not approachability, so as to allow for covering,
>  in as much depth as we think needed, any issues relating to
>  less-common or cat-corner issues.  As it will be solely then used by
>  editors working on classical works lists, it does not have a need then
>  to be a quick "how to title tracks" for classical, but it does then
>  have a strong need to be a guideline that even can cover cat-corners.
>
>  I further propose that a the "earliest version of" AR be changes to
>  "is an instance of", to allow tracks on releases to be linked to works
>  list entries, and that this AR include a numerical attribute - would
>  allowing 1 through 10 be sufficient? - to indicate the ordering of
>  instances, with a default value of 1.  Thus, in a particular
>  recording, Symphony No. 10: I. Allegro might have an attribute value
>  of 1, and Symphony No. 10: II. Andante might have an attribute value
>  of 2, indicating that, in that one track, both the Allegro work and
>  the Andante work are present, and that the Allegro work is first,
>  followed by the Andante work.  A new AR might be created, but as it
>  encompasses the entire point, plus some, of the "version of" AR, it's
>  perhaps better simply to rename and enhance the existing AR.
>
>  I further propose that work-based ARs be encouraged to be added to the
>  works list version, rather than the instance version, with the express
>  understanding that such ARs are *always* to be inheritable,
>  eliminating the "duplication of ARs" problem (at least for
>  non-specific performance ARs) that dmppanda pointed out several weeks
>  ago.
>
>  I further suggest that this then eliminates such issues as "no covers
>  for classical" by providing a true generic instance which can be used
>  as the target on the classical work's end of that AR, changes the
>  encouragement generally for the "parody of" and "cover of" ARs such
>  that those ARs then point to the works listing, and not any one track.
>
>  I further propose that such works listings ought to be strictly for a
>  single movement - no additional listings just for combo-tracks, as
>  they are handled by the instance of AR.
>
>  I further propose that such works listings should be the "complete"
>  form, such that any data relevant to required identifying a specific
>  version of a work, but not such data that would indicate a particular
>  recording of a work, be included.  So, "with clarinets" and "without
>  clarinets" would both be listed, as well, perhaps, as a generic form
>  (for when we don't know which specific version it is) not mentioning
>  clarinets, but such details as "(take 3)" would be left to releases,
>  and not tracks, as they indicate a particular recording, not a
>  particular work.
>
>  Brian
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Musicbrainz-style mailing list
>  Musicbrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
>  http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>