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

[Brian Schweitzer]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:19 AM, David K. Gasaway <dave at gasaway.org> wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2008 at 0:27, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
>
>  > But
>  > what I think you're talking about I also addressed:
>  >
>  > "Now, so I'm not misunderstood, if we're dealing with a song like, say,
>  > In the Pines / Where Did You Sleep Last Night, where the song has
>  > evolved with every other artist who has recorded it, then yes, that
>  > quite likely ought to appear in many works lists, each of the two
>  > branches of development of that song linking together back through
>  > time."
>
>  Exactly.  The song could appear in multiple work lists.  I was simply
>  pointing out that if you *didn't* want a song in multiple work lists
>  (to avoid the duplication and branching - I don't recall off-hand who
>  expressed a concern about this), then there are the other two options I
>  listed.

Sounds good.  :)

So we can get finished with this, and get back to the real classical
discussion, is there anyone who'd yet object to an RFV for works lists
(just so that concept has at least had one) and an RFV for the changes
/ additions from this RFC?

The only objection I recall is the wording of the AR for works lists
to tracks.  Personally, it may sound overly academic, but I prefer "is
an instance of" over "contains a recording of", if only because I
think, if/when we do add sessions as the NGS entities between track
masters and work lists, I think we'd want to save that particular
'contains a recording of' wording for the AR we'd then use to link the
session to the work list.  Can anyone suggest any other alternate
wording, besides 'an instance of', which wouldn't cause us confusion
with track masters or sessions later down the line?

Brian