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

2013/10/23 Tom Crocker <[email protected]>

>
> On 23 October 2013 09:50, Frederic Da Vitoria <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 2013/10/23 Tom Crocker <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> a) medley with recordings split into component works:
>>> The ARs are between
>>> recording - work
>>> a - x
>>>  b - y
>>> c - z
>>> So there's nothing apart from perhaps some versions of a tracklist to
>>> tie them together.
>>>
>>
>> Interesting, I hadn't thought of that: in a Recording-Work AR, the
>> "parent" is the Recording. But that doesn't change anything IMO, simple
>> numbering would still work.
>>
>
> But simple numbering will not tell us that a-x is part of a medley with
> b-y and c-z and there is no robust way of knowing that based on the data we
> have. We could probably figure it out in most cases based on the ordering
> of tracks but that's complex, implicit and can't be guaranteed. We know x
> has been recorded as part of a medley, but not which the other works were.
>

Oh, you mean a b and c are distinct recordings? I thought they were parts
of the same recording. That's a completely different issue. We'd need a way
to virtually "merge" those recordings and then create medley ARs from the
virtual recording to x, y and z. But that would be a 3 entity AR (virtual
recording / physical recording / work), something we can't do currently. I
can't imagine any numbering scheme which would tell that those recordings
are tied together. There is a similar missing virtual recording in
classical music, when sometimes a movement is artificially split in several
tracks.

-- 
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