Re: [mb-users] ARs for references in works?

>> That "fact box" I mentioned should only show
>>
>>   [  This song references "Girls, Girls, Girls" by Mötley Crüe.  ]
>>
>> when you listen to "Boys, Boys, Boys" by Lady Gaga. The text in the
>> edit note might be "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answer_song".
>> That should not be in the fact box, and that is as true day 1 as after
>> a few years. An empty annotation is quite enough for this (and most)
>> ARs.
>
>
> I understand, but OTOH in this example the edit note, although not quite to
> the point, would not be completely wrong. It might even, in a slightly less
> obvious example, help users to understand where the AR comes from.

Of course the edit note helps you understand where the AR comes from.
That's what it's for, so you look at it when you want to know that!

> I'd
> rather have a few AR annotations not very informative (although not
> factually wrong) than mostly empty AR annotations.

Almost all of these *should* be empty. Take the examples of references
in songs at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answer_song . None,
or almost none of those need annotations. Just a link is good enough.

It's really not different from ARs for works. In that fact box I only
want to see
"written by Lady Gaga & Rob Fusari". I certainly don't want to see "cd
in hand" or "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fame" or whatever is in
the edit note.

Could annotations be useful for those ARs as well? Absolutely. That's
where you would describe extra information like "X wrote the bridge
and Y the rest" or "officially written by X & Y, but most scholars
agree that it's the work of X, and Y was credited just because of
...". That is, information that can't be put in the db as relations,
but that is interestig for users of the db. All of that should be in
the fact box
I was talking about.

> Now if you can show me an example when copying the edit note as a default value for the AR annotation would
> actually be a bad thing (leading to a wrong annotation or preventing the
> editors from correcting it somehow)...

I think I did, because showing users information meant for editors is
a bad thing. Of course we want users to think about becoming editors
themselves, but still, you should be able to use the database just to
find facts about music without being exposed to irrelevant stuff like
a note "cd in hand" after each other note from the person who added
that particular fact. I don't see why "Boys, Boys, Boys" references
"Girls, Girls, Girls" should be so much different from facts we
already have in that.