Re: [mb-users] Sorting sub-works and more generally ARs

2013/10/22 Lemire, Sebastien <[email protected]>

> Earlier we have news of attributes to works and now this. Looks like
> Christmas must have come early :)
>
> As for how to implement this, the simple way would be a numerical
> attribute in attribute for the Work is a part of work relationship. It
> might not gracefully handle one making a mistake and entering the same
> number to two the sub-works though... Also editing mistakes or adding a
> work in the middle would be a pain in the a**.
>

Yes, but all these issues would remain if we use a character zone.



>  The best solution would that as soon as a work has 2 or more parts
> related to it, that an option appears on the right hand-side to re-order
> the parts. Clicking on it would bring a small GUI and we could move them
> similarly to how he we currently move tracks on a tracklist. The actual
> ordering value could be kept internal to MB and not be editable by hand.
>

Yes, but these are purely UI issues. Unless I have missed something, none
of these would impact a schema change. I am more concerned about some wish
which would require something more complex than a simple number field.



> As for sub-hierarchies, I'd be happy with having to treat each sub-hearchy
> separately. Although it would be nice obviously if you go to the top of the
> tree, click on the re-order and see the whole tree...
>

We seem to agree about sub-hierarchies: if we need a numbering like "2.5",
then this means that we should enter 2 part levels, a higher and a lower,
and each level should be numbered relatively to it's parent. So that "2.5"
would be split into 2 lines: a "2" at the higher level and a "5" at the
lower level. It would be the UI's job to coalesce all the parts correctly
if the user wishes to see them all at the same time.

Again, I believe numbering could be used for other things than sob-works.
Nikki and monxton found other (but similar) uses for this field: medleys
and compilations. Both of these would IMO be addressed with a simple
number. But can someone think of another use?



> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-3375 is more than 2 years old.
>> It seems it is stuck because nobody is sure how it should be implemented. I
>> feel many important things are clumsily patched (or not addressed at all)
>> because we lack ordering. I'd like to revive the discussion about this and
>> hopefully not have yet another schema change without it.
>>
>> Here is my suggestion: add a simple number to ARs which could be used by
>> the AR types which we find relevant. This number would of course be used
>> for ordering.
>>
>> Why not a string allowing for things like "2.1.5"? Because I am not
>> currently convinced that smart sorting on strings such as this would be the
>> correct way to handle sub-hierarchies.
>>
>
-- 
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