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

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Brian Schweitzer <
brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Aaron Cooper <cooperaa at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  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?


I suggest we use the temporary AR, because this AR is equivalent to a
shortcut to the full series of 3 future ARs and when the full structure is
implemented, I believe we will be happy we are able to separate true fully
detailed ARs from our current temporary ones. Maybe this temporary AR is
even going to stay because we will not always be able to find the master or
the session, and inputting the 3-steps AR will then be impossible.


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?
>

Are the "earliest" ARs such good ideas? If someone discovers there was
actually an earlier something, we could forget to remove the older incorrect
AR. Couldn't we just use dates? The "earliest" AR could be easily deduced by
the system by comparing them.

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080311/08a7c206/attachment.htm