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

[Brian Schweitzer]

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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'd doubt an entire opera would ever be released as a single track,
but sure, we could even make it simply a text field defaulting to 1,
rather than a drop down, and allow anything 1 to 99 - that would cover
even the worst JS Bach offender being shoved into a single track.

Brian