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

2013/10/3 Per Starbäck <[email protected]>

> >> 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.
>

I am starting to believe I am wrong. But about your last question, the last
link could need corroboration. Anybody could enter such a link based only
on the title similarity. What I was hoping for is some sort of proof that
this similarity is not accidental, for the benefit for example of a user
who does not understand enough English to see that proof in the lyrics or
of someone who does not have both songs.

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

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

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