Re: [mb-users] Long works and classical music: ideas for overcoming the track dominant approach

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <
[email protected]> wrote:

> (1) marking a set of recordings and work parts (however independently) as
>> being a complete set of parts (recordings) that represent the work;
>>
> We do have a way of marking works as parts of the parent/full work already.
>

Agreed, but it only states if it is contained within the bigger work, not
whether a set is a *complete* representation of a work.

 (2) adding precedes/follows relationships between parts (similar to the
>> track editor when adding a release;
>>
> Ordered parts for works is something we've certainly wanted for a while.
> It's not technically trivial though, unless we did it by literally adding
> "next in set" relationships, which can be a pain to maintain and are at
> most a hack :) The ordering should probably be stored in the part-of
> relationship, ideally (IMO) by this being an n-point relationship that
> includes all parts instead of n "has part" relationships.
>

An implementation could consist of (a) having the concept of a "set" and
(b) assigning a weight attribute to list element (heavier items go below
lightweight ones).

(3) allow adding a directed sequence of movements to be associated to a
>> recording (see my first example).
>>
> You can add several movements to one recording already - what's missing
> there is the ordering.
>

This is something I didn't know until today (and I had something of an hint
that this was the current way of working in the following release:
http://musicbrainz.org/release/ef05ae0e-4807-4160-b83c-44a0ee3cfdaf). I
will apply this now in the first example (
http://musicbrainz.org/release/875add80-0977-41e7-8321-a9f0552384c5).

Best regards,

Olivier

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users