On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 10:55 -0800, ovonrein wrote: > pfarrell Wrote: > > > > The key problem is that any hierarchical structure fails for > > classical music.
> You lost me with this one. I had thought that > Composer/Work/Artists/Movements > pretty much covers all bases. I am not too bothered mixing singers and > conductors in the Artists component. Its all just personal preference. you propose > Composer/Work/Artists/Movements but I'd probably go with > > pfarrell Wrote: > > > > Extra directories can be setup by you now. But that won't > > do much, as it is hierarchical thinking that is the root problem. > > > > The alternative to hierarchical databases for the past 30 years has > > been a relational database. > > > > Yes, and I have seen more chaos in relational databases than I ever saw > in hierarchical structures. Relational database design tends to require > more discipline than the average designer cares to muster. Hierarchical > databases usually impose it. > > Oh and - granted - there is the *odd* problem that could indeed not be > elegantly represented in hierarchical form ;) > > pfarrell Wrote: > > > > For me, the answer to [tagging] is again, use anything that is > > consistent within your library, but don't lose much sleep over it. The > > [...] reality is that the limits of internal tags become painfully > > clear with classical. So just tag the files basically and move on. > > > > I am with you on that once since from what I can make out, the Slim > player interface only allows me to retrieve by file tree structure. > Tags come in later, when it comes to building the playlist. > > pfarrell Wrote: > > > > The real solution is to use external data [...] in a relational > > database. A database with extensions so that there are clear and easy > > to use fields like conductor, soloists, accompanists, group, and > > performance-location for the recording and composer, title, movement, > > key, opus etc. for the music. > > > > You are beginning to lose me. I can only surmise that you are > proposing that my search should be able to traverse an arbritrary > number of attributes. > > The Slim player interface will adapt, since it will simply follow these > branches. > > This would work. > > And I am sure that you can make it work in your modern-day relational > database. Only SMOP. As a small aside, I had thought that you would > have found a hierarchical database a much more natural choise - they > adapt too, you know ... :) > > -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
