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

On 30 October 2013 05:59, David Gasaway <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Tom Crocker <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>
>>  producer: x, y, z (assistant)
>>
>
> Perhaps, but would it really make sense to allow these to be sorted "x, z
> (assistant), y"?  Probably not, but if it makes for a simpler system
> overall, I could accept it.
>

I guess that's why I'm inclined to limit where it can be used. On the other
hand if someone wants to sort it like that and it isn't voted down it
wouldn't seem like a crisis to me. If it's wrong we could change it back.


> Keep in mind that artist disambiguations need to be in there somewhere.  I
> am concerned how this would look with vocal/instrument performance ARs with
> something like this:
>
> http://musicbrainz.org/release/a0d2bf39-a338-4b84-9ba7-c60234bc9563
>

We already deal with that e.g. founding member Eric Wilson in
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/95f5b748-d370-47fe-85bd-0af2dc450bc0/relationships

the grey vs. black for disambiguation and attributes seems to work.

But I agree that having "instruments: James
Taylor<http://musicbrainz.org/artist/107d0c22-d051-4d98-8206-4e14de02132a>
(singer-songwriter
and guitarist) (acoustic guitar)" etc. would not be elegant. Again a reason
for not allowing sorting there.
[OT again] Although, I would like to see it better sorted. Relationship
types already have sort orders in the tree we see when we do edits and I'd
like to see that in the UI (child_order in link_type and
link_attribute_type the database). I'd like to see the performance credits
together, I'd actually like to see vocals before instruments (although it's
currently the other way around in the tree), percussion together, strings
together, etc. The way a person would group such things not a computer.[/OT]

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