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

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Brian Schweitzer <
brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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,


Why not add a new AR? The existing "earliest version" ARs point to tracks,
not works. If we changed the meaning of the "earliest version" AR, we would
have to remove those existing ARs.



> 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 don't think 10 would be enough (Opera, Cantata, Mass...)


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 don't understand what you are suggesting here...

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080302/39b9a2f0/attachment.htm