[mb-style] Later version vs. Derivative work

Frederic Da Vitoria davitofrg at gmail.com
Mon Jul 25 12:33:41 UTC 2011

2011/7/25, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>:
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Other_Version_Relationship_Type is
> completely outdated / wrong (it seems it was "updated" with recordings
> in mind, but it was moved to works, so the page is a disaster).
> There are two options here. I'd say a "has derivative work"
> relationship is needed for the cases where a link exists, but is not
> just a "later version" (for example, "Variations on a Theme of The
> Magic Flute" should be linked to The Magic Flute somehow, but it is
> clearly not just a "later version" of it… it applies also to pop music
> sometimes). I'm not the only one who thinks this, see
> http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=2907 for example.
> My question is: should "Other Version" be renamed and turned into
> "derivative work" (with the same attributes and probably some new ones
> that would get added over time) or should it remain and "derivative
> work" be added as its parent relationship (instead of the non-usable
> "covers and versions" we have now)?

I feel the first solution would change the meaning of existing ARs. I
don't see any reason to say that "derivative work" is the parent of
"other version" either. Why does one have to be the parent of the
other, couldn't they be siblings?

Frederic Da Vitoria

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -

More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list