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

[Brian Schweitzer]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Aaron Cooper <cooperaa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  On 11-Mar-08, at 8:00 AM, Mike Morrison wrote:
>
>  >
>  > On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
>  >> 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
>  >
>  > Just so I understand, if/when we have sessions, what would be the AR
>  > wording? Would the chain go something like this?
>  >
>  > Track is an instance of Track Master
>  > Track Master is a ???? of Session
>  > Session contains a recording of Work
>
>  I would have thought this:
>
>
>  Track is an instance of TrackMaster
>  TrackMaster is a recording of Session
>  Session is a performance of Work

That makes sense to me.  So if we're soon to have track masters, and
sooner to have works, but also planning to eventually have sessions in
the long term, what AR are we then going to use, near term, to link
tracks directly to works, and how would that change when track masters
are added in, before sessions are added in to complete the structure?
One/two of those 3, or some other temporary AR that we eventually
depricate as the full entity structure becomes available?

Also, to add to that list, too, I'd add in the current three (four) ARs:

Work is the earliest version of work
Track is the earliest release of ???
Work is a parody of work
Track is a cover of work

For the earliest release of AR, would a track be the earliest release
of a track, of a track master, of a session or of a work?  Or perhaps
it's really three different concepts - a track as the earliest release
of a track master, a track master as the earliest released recording
of a session, and a session as the earliest performance of a work?

For the last one of these four, under a structure which contains a
work concept, do we then even have a need for a special cover AR?
Isn't a track instance / track master / session of a work by
definition a cover, if the track artist and the work artist are not
the same?

Brian