[mb-users] "and" vs. "vs." ("and" and "vs.") collaborations

[Kuno Woudt]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 04:30:27PM +0400, Atedos wrote:
> The question is: Are they the same?
> Situation is as follows:
> Don Davis and Juno Reactor collaboration is presented in different ways 
> on releases, in "and" meaning, and in "vs." meaning.
> Some of argumentations here 
> http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8921018 and here 
> http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8921017
> I used to believe they are surely different, but now I'm in doubt.

In general, I think the practice is to merge these as much as possible.
I think 'vs.' is different enough to warrant a duplicate, but it will
depend a lot on which artists are involved, how consistently is the
labeling used, etc...

> I see two solutions:
> 1) Create two collaborations, and use them separately, as credited on 
> releases. But in this case it would be duplicates (if they are 
> considered the same), which is undesirable.

For some artists, this is really the only option without losing
information users interested in those artists feel important.
For example, japanese artists (yes, them again):

I think most users will expect the 'm-flo loves...' collaborations
to be in the database the way they are now.  'm-flo♥Crystal Kay'
and 'Crystal Kay♥m-flo' should not be merged.

> 2) Create one common collaboration (perhaps standardized "and" or "&" 
> one), and use it for all credits. In this case it would be a lack of 
> information, concerning the way of collaboration (if they are considered 
> different).

This should be the general guideline, but ConsistentOriginalData and
ArtistIntent may in certain cases be enough reason to deviate from this
and create duplicates.

Neither option is perfect, and I believe this will eventually be
addressed by NGS -- how an artist is credited on a release will be 
seperated from the artist entity itself (iirc anyway, ngs is still 
a rather fuzzy subject to me :).

-- kuno / warp.