[mb-users] additional CoverArt AR necessary?

[Philipp Wolfer]

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Johannes Dewender <brainz at jonnyjd.net>
wrote:

> The reasoning is basically:
> Some people (including me) would like to have some kind of API for
> plugins/programs etc. where the CoverArt URL can be retrieved directly
> (without knowledge of special websites) if the server somehow knows
> about it.
> We don't have something like that know, so the CoverArt AR could be seen
> as the API right now.
>
> This is the point where we actually have a disagreement.
>
> I personally think, that the CoverArt AR like it is used now is pretty
> useless and redundant if we already have a Jamendo (or CD-baby, ..) URL
> provided through some other means and it is an unnecessary effort to
> create it and unnecessary information to display at the release page.
> If we see a Jamendo download and a cover, we have all the information
> we need already.
>

I think that I (outsidecontext) already made my opinion pretty clear in the
discussion about ticket #3189. Let me summarize it here:

1. A CC license AR is *not* a cover art AR. They are semantically completely
different. You can't logically derive a cover art from a license URL. That
it is possible in some cases is irrelevant.

2. It is good to have a special cover art AR (or other specific ARs as e.g.
the free download AR) as it makes MusicBrainz predictable for client
applications. You want to display cover art in your player? Ask MB for cover
art ARs.

3. I don't see any value in removing existing *valid* cover art ARs and will
vote against those edits when I encounter them.

4. We have special cases: Jamendo and CD-Baby cover art URLs don't link
directy to an image, and Amazon does not use the cover art AR at all but has
it's own. That's not great, but it is what we have currently. However, I
would like to see MB to expose consistent cover art URLs via it's web
service, no matter how you have to input the data in the UI.

5. Having a two ARs cover art and CC license pointng to the same URL is not
redundant information. Both ARs provide completely distinct information,
they only happen to point to the same location. The redundancy is mainly a
UI issue (you have to add the same URL twice).

IMHO the only issues worth discussing are 4 and 5.



> I also added, that technically a FULL image URL in the CoverArt AR would
> help any processing program that is not aware that there is something
> special about Jamendo download/CC links. However, right now we only add
> the exact same URL in the CoverArt Art that we already added in the CC
> AR.
>

True


> Questions on the side:
> Should MusicBrainz automatically display the CoverArt without the
> CoverArt AR, when we want to have a CoverArt AR attached?


I see no problem in MB using what it gets to display cover art. But just
because the server displays cover art does not make the cover art
superflous. See point 2 above.


Philipp Wolfer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20080416/aba7e26a/attachment.htm