[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 completely outdated / wrong (it seems it was "updated" with recordings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
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org



More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list