Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

[Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren]

On 5 Jan 2014 14:56, "Maurits"  wrote:
>
> Oh ok. I got the impression from the original Jira ticket that this
> should be discussed somewhere, and I thought that would be here. Should
> I take this somewhere else or just add my thought s to the Jira ticket
> and forget about it for now?

Discussion never hurts :) It's just that an RFC implies taking decisions
and most final decisions here should probably be taken by developers when
developing the feature. Adding the comments to the jira ticket would seem
sensible though - "this was talked about on -style and we found these
issues/have these preferences" or something like that.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

[Maurits]

Oh ok. I got the impression from the original Jira ticket that this 
should be discussed somewhere, and I thought that would be here. Should 
I take this somewhere else or just add my thought s to the Jira ticket 
and forget about it for now?

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

[Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren]

Given this isn't a style issue, but a code-dependant schema change, I'm not
sure what the point of an RFC would be :) How to eventually use them maybe,
but that sounds like something to decide once we know how they'll be
implemented...
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

[Maurits]

Looking through the comments so far I think most people would like to 
see instruments implemented as entities, though with some conditions.
Mikhel want to be able to seed the aliases from the .pot files used for 
translations on Transifex. I think I agree on that one, since making an 
add alias edit for every instruments would be a chore, and many 
instruments have already been translated. I just don't know how hard it 
would be to implement for a programmer, since I'm not one.
Ben seems to agree with the idea of instruments as entities, but wants a 
wholly different approach of adding new instruments. I personally think 
the current process is too exclusive, but I'm not sure about his 
bottom-up approach either. I do think that while it's related to 
instruments as entities, its not really a part of this issue, and it 
would be better served in a separate proposal. Perhaps you could take 
care of that yourself? You have thought about this more than me.
I'd like to take this issue forward into proper RFC territory, but I'm 
not quite sure how I should proceed. Obviously my proposal can't be too 
detailed, because I don't know exactly how it can be implemented. I've 
made a wiki page with a summary of my ideas about this issue here: 
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:mfmeulenbelt/instruments I can convert 
that in a proper RFC page of course, but do we need solutions for all of 
the issues I've listed there before I do so?

Maurits Meulenbelt

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

[Maurits]

They could be, though I think most people adding a Stratocaster would 
know it's a model of electric guitar. They could also be implemented as 
sub-types of instruments, but that would mean a gazillion of new 
instruments and I'm not sure if that's worth it.

Rachel Dwight schreef op 2-1-2014 21:51:
> Would specific instrument makes and models have to be implemented as aliases?
>
> Sent from my iPhone

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

[Rachel Dwight]

Would specific instrument makes and models have to be implemented as aliases?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 2, 2014, at 1:03 PM, "Frederik \"Freso\" S. Olesen" 
>  wrote:
> 
> Den 02-01-2014 15:02, Frederic Da Vitoria skrev:
>> I don't know where what is the current situation about languages in the
>> DB. If it is far from handling languages correctly, and if instrument
>> entities are implemented before languages, we could temporarily restrict
>> the instrument language to English. English is the language currently
>> used for the instrument tree, and it is probably the language which has
>> the most instruments translated into it.
> 
> "Languages" are already implemented and several site translations are
> well underway. We agreed at the summit to open up for the German
> translation on the main site. I don't know why that's not happened yet.
> 
> If(/when) instrument-as-entities are added, we'll be able to fully
> utilise the power of the alias and disambiguation systems. Two
> instruments called the same can have disambiguation notes. One
> instrument called different things in different languages can have
> localised aliases. One instrument called multiple things in one language
> can have multiple (localised) aliases. E.g., "viola" could have the
> French primary alias "alto", the Danish primary alias "bratsch", and an
> additional Danish alias "viola". The search system also takes aliases
> into account, so searching for either viola, alto, or bratsch would make
> this instrument show up in the results.
> 
> Whether we're currently "handling languages correctly" is probably
> rather debatable though. I'd say no, but I think we need some more
> wide-spread testing (e.g., get some non-English languages enabled on
> mb.o) allowing users to get a feel for what needs to be handled differently.
> 
> -- 
> Namasté,
> Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen 
> MB:   https://musicbrainz.org/user/Freso
> Wiki: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Freso
> 
> ___
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

[Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen]

Den 02-01-2014 15:02, Frederic Da Vitoria skrev:
> I don't know where what is the current situation about languages in the
> DB. If it is far from handling languages correctly, and if instrument
> entities are implemented before languages, we could temporarily restrict
> the instrument language to English. English is the language currently
> used for the instrument tree, and it is probably the language which has
> the most instruments translated into it.

"Languages" are already implemented and several site translations are
well underway. We agreed at the summit to open up for the German
translation on the main site. I don't know why that's not happened yet.

If(/when) instrument-as-entities are added, we'll be able to fully
utilise the power of the alias and disambiguation systems. Two
instruments called the same can have disambiguation notes. One
instrument called different things in different languages can have
localised aliases. One instrument called multiple things in one language
can have multiple (localised) aliases. E.g., "viola" could have the
French primary alias "alto", the Danish primary alias "bratsch", and an
additional Danish alias "viola". The search system also takes aliases
into account, so searching for either viola, alto, or bratsch would make
this instrument show up in the results.

Whether we're currently "handling languages correctly" is probably
rather debatable though. I'd say no, but I think we need some more
wide-spread testing (e.g., get some non-English languages enabled on
mb.o) allowing users to get a feel for what needs to be handled differently.

-- 
Namasté,
Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen 
MB:   https://musicbrainz.org/user/Freso
Wiki: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Freso



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

[Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen]

Den 02-01-2014 13:44, Ben Ockmore skrev:
> For instruments, the user would enter an instrument name into a free
> text field, and this would be searched for among existing instrument
> entities. If it's not found, then the user can proceed to use their entry.
> 
> If other users enter the same name, then after a certain number of
> submissions, by multiple users, the name would automatically get
> promoted to an entity, and all matching relationships would be updated
> to use this new entity. Users could then merge or add relationships to
> the instrument just like a normal entity.

I voiced this at the summit as well, but I only think this approach is
sound if that "certain number" is 1. If I add an instrument, I'll likely
want to be able to store translations/aliases and link it to external
sites immediately - instead of waiting for any number of other people to
use the instrument. (Working in niche genres often lead you to have
niche instruments.) If there's some way to add aliases/translations and
links to the instrument before it's an entity... then how is it not an
entity already?

Anyway. I'm not sure this is the place for that discussion. +1 to the
"proposal", though I wasn't aware if was something needing RFC'ing. :)

-- 
Namasté,
Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen 
MB:   https://musicbrainz.org/user/Freso
Wiki: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Freso



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2014/1/2 Ben Ockmore 

> I think it would be helpful if we allow Instruments to have images, and
> use these in search results to show graphically what each of the
> suggestions looks like.
>
> All of your ideas for language selection/detection are good. Perhaps we
> could also use the site language that the user is using (once that moves
> from beta to the main site).
>

Yes, images would definitely be useful !

I don't know where what is the current situation about languages in the DB.
If it is far from handling languages correctly, and if instrument entities
are implemented before languages, we could temporarily restrict the
instrument language to English. English is the language currently used for
the instrument tree, and it is probably the language which has the most
instruments translated into it.

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

[Ben Ockmore]

I think it would be helpful if we allow Instruments to have images, and use
these in search results to show graphically what each of the suggestions
looks like.

All of your ideas for language selection/detection are good. Perhaps we
could also use the site language that the user is using (once that moves
from beta to the main site).
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2014/1/2 Ben Ockmore 

> Of course, there wouldn't be an instrument -> ID3 genre mapping! That part
> applies to genres only. :P
>
> For instruments, the user would enter an instrument name into a free text
> field, and this would be searched for among existing instrument entities.
> If it's not found, then the user can proceed to use their entry.
>
> If other users enter the same name, then after a certain number of
> submissions, by multiple users, the name would automatically get promoted
> to an entity, and all matching relationships would be updated to use this
> new entity. Users could then merge or add relationships to the instrument
> just like a normal entity.
>
> So basically, +1 for making instruments entities, but I'd like to see a
> more fluid and controlled way of creating them (rather than any old person
> coming along and adding an instrument with an edit, which may or may not be
> voted on by other editors). I don't want to limit editing instruments to a
> group of "Instrument Editors" though, because IMO that sort of system is
> elitist and discourages contribution.
>

Then we need the language to be handled in some way. Else this will become
a nightmare, with the instruments written in a language/script that few
users know/are able to check, and the false friends (I guess most users who
know French know that the English "viola" is the same as the French
"alto"). It also should be able to handle homonyms (in French the same word
designates the alto (viola) and the alto (voice)). If we go this way, it is
going to be tricky. But interesting :-)

When I stated first that "we need the language to be handled in some way",
I meant that
- if a user enters for example "alto" and the word is NOT already known,
the MB UI should ask the user which language.
- if a user enters for example "alto" and the word is already known in
several languages, the MB UI should detect that in different languages it
has different meanings and should tell the user so, offer him to pick the
meaning really intended or create one if needed.
- if a user enters for example "alto" and the word is already known in only
one language, the MB UI should tell the user so, offer him to pick this
meaning if it the one really intended or create one new language/meaning if
needed.

We could of course state that the language should for example be the
Release's language, but this would still possibly generate bad edits for
multi-language releases. Also, a user could for example buy a French
release, but find the specific instruments on a German site. So that I
believe that the instrument input language should remain user-modifiable.

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

[Ben Ockmore]

Of course, there wouldn't be an instrument -> ID3 genre mapping! That part
applies to genres only. :P

For instruments, the user would enter an instrument name into a free text
field, and this would be searched for among existing instrument entities.
If it's not found, then the user can proceed to use their entry.

If other users enter the same name, then after a certain number of
submissions, by multiple users, the name would automatically get promoted
to an entity, and all matching relationships would be updated to use this
new entity. Users could then merge or add relationships to the instrument
just like a normal entity.

So basically, +1 for making instruments entities, but I'd like to see a
more fluid and controlled way of creating them (rather than any old person
coming along and adding an instrument with an edit, which may or may not be
voted on by other editors). I don't want to limit editing instruments to a
group of "Instrument Editors" though, because IMO that sort of system is
elitist and discourages contribution.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2014/1/1 Ben Ockmore 

> I still think that similar systems should be used for Genres and
> Instruments (seeing as they're both tree-based systems), so I'd like to
> wait until the developer decide on how they'll tackle Genres before
> anything happens with instruments.
>
> What I'd like to see if both Instruments and Genres as entities, which
> aren't created by a formal "add" process, but are formed from tags/words
> entered by users - a "bottom-up" approach, where user input decides what
> instruments and genres should be in the system. I've written this down
> here, and we talked about it a little at the last summit, but didn't agree
> on anything:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fRfpALAX5D0RAjF7upbPcaAR70OIsQk1jNOW5uuf5wQ/edit?usp=sharing
>

I think I understand your suggestion about genres, but I fail to see the
relation with instruments. Or rather, I feel instruments are sufficiently
different if not structurally, at least semantically, that they would need
to be studied separately. For example, I don't see when entering a tag
would trigger creating an instrument entity. Reference instruments should
be created manually too, because it is important to enter reference names.
And I don't think a simple number of occurrences should be enough for
creating an entity. If you set the limit at for example 50 occurrences
(which is much higher than our current limit for instruments), I can
perfectly imagine a user entering more than 50 times an instrument with the
same typo, thus creating a false instrument. At least for instruments, all
entity creations should be voted IMO.

I don't know much about id3 or itunes genres, but would the mapping between
an instrument and a genre work?

Also, I think it would be interesting to think how user language might
influence your idea. For example, in genres, sometimes exact translations
don't exist, and words which seem to be a translation actually mean
something different. So that it could be a good idea to create a set of
genres for each language, with a way to link (approximately) matching
genres between languages when possible. For example, I believe we Frenchies
use the words Pop and Rock differently from Americans (and probably from
English people too). OTOH, I don't think much translation issues would
appear for instruments.

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

[Ben Ockmore]

I still think that similar systems should be used for Genres and
Instruments (seeing as they're both tree-based systems), so I'd like to
wait until the developer decide on how they'll tackle Genres before
anything happens with instruments.

What I'd like to see if both Instruments and Genres as entities, which
aren't created by a formal "add" process, but are formed from tags/words
entered by users - a "bottom-up" approach, where user input decides what
instruments and genres should be in the system. I've written this down
here, and we talked about it a little at the last summit, but didn't agree
on anything:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fRfpALAX5D0RAjF7upbPcaAR70OIsQk1jNOW5uuf5wQ/edit?usp=sharing
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

[Maurits]

Searching by instruments by their English name could be a solution too, 
I agree, though it would be more useful if you could search for all 
languages.
And since I already translated most instrument names in Transifex, I 
wouldn't like to see that effort wasted either. How feasible would it 
be to import those aliases from the pot files?
I'm no programmer so I don't know how much effort that would be or if 
it's even possible.

Maurits Meulenbelt

Op zaterdag 28 december 2013 18:19:30, Mihkel Tõnnov schreef:
>
>
>
> 2013/12/28 Maurits  >
>
> Personally I'd love to have this feature because as a translator, I
> wouldn't have to worry about translating the name of an instrument and
> making it impossible for an end-user to find said instrument when
> editing from a different-language release.
> An entity-ified instrument would simply have an alias for a
> language and
> searching for a Harpsichord would automatically select the Klavecimbel
> or Cembalo from the instrument list, depending on the language the
> site
> is viewed in.
>
>
> I agree it would be more comfortable for entering instrument ARs.
> However, the problem you describe could also be solved by allowing to
> search instruments by their English names
> (http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-6427). Of course, this
> wouldn't solve the other problems outlined at MBS-3674.
>
> It would also move the translations of instruments away from the (IMO)
> cumbersome Transifex to the more manageable MusicBrainz editing
> system.
>
>
> Transifex is indeed rather cumbersome for the actual translation --
> which is why I translate offline and then upload to Tx --, but as I
> said on the issue page, having to manually enter hundreds of
> instruments (~600 atm) as aliases, would be way, *waaayy* worse. If
> instruments do become entities, then there really should be a way to
> seed the aliases from .po files or such.
>
> Note that I don't oppose making them into entities in principle -- I
> just really want to have a decent way to enter translations.
>
> Best regards,
> Mihkel
>
>
> ___
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

[Mihkel Tõnnov]

2013/12/28 Maurits 

> Personally I'd love to have this feature because as a translator, I
> wouldn't have to worry about translating the name of an instrument and
> making it impossible for an end-user to find said instrument when
> editing from a different-language release.
> An entity-ified instrument would simply have an alias for a language and
> searching for a Harpsichord would automatically select the Klavecimbel
> or Cembalo from the instrument list, depending on the language the site
> is viewed in.
>

I agree it would be more comfortable for entering instrument ARs. However,
the problem you describe could also be solved by allowing to search
instruments by their English names (
http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-6427). Of course, this wouldn't
solve the other problems outlined at MBS-3674.

It would also move the translations of instruments away from the (IMO)
> cumbersome Transifex to the more manageable MusicBrainz editing system.
>

Transifex is indeed rather cumbersome for the actual translation -- which
is why I translate offline and then upload to Tx --, but as I said on the
issue page, having to manually enter hundreds of instruments (~600 atm) as
aliases, would be way, *waaayy* worse. If instruments do become entities,
then there really should be a way to seed the aliases from .po files or
such.

Note that I don't oppose making them into entities in principle -- I just
really want to have a decent way to enter translations.

Best regards,
Mihkel
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

[Rachel Dwight]

On Dec 28, 2013, at 5:15 AM, Maurits  wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> There is a ticket* in the bug tracker on turning instruments into 
> entities, but it doesn't seem to have been discussed on this mailing 
> list yet.
> Obviously this would be a big feature and a schema change, and we'd have 
> to discuss the desirability of it first, so I didn't want to turn this 
> into a formal RFC just yet.
> Personally I'd love to have this feature because as a translator, I 
> wouldn't have to worry about translating the name of an instrument and 
> making it impossible for an end-user to find said instrument when 
> editing from a different-language release.
> An entity-ified instrument would simply have an alias for a language and 
> searching for a Harpsichord would automatically select the Klavecimbel 
> or Cembalo from the instrument list, depending on the language the site 
> is viewed in.
> It would also move the translations of instruments away from the (IMO) 
> cumbersome Transifex to the more manageable MusicBrainz editing system.
> I understand not everybody shares my ideas about the increased ease for 
> translating (see Mihkel Tõnnov's comment on the issue page), so I wonder 
> what everybody else's opinion would be.
> 
> Maurits Meulenbelt

+1
Nikki and I discussed this a while back. I have some releases whose liner notes 
contain line-item lists of the make and models of all the instruments played.

> 
> * http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-3674
> 
> ___
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[mb-style] Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

[Maurits]

Hello,

There is a ticket* in the bug tracker on turning instruments into 
entities, but it doesn't seem to have been discussed on this mailing 
list yet.
Obviously this would be a big feature and a schema change, and we'd have 
to discuss the desirability of it first, so I didn't want to turn this 
into a formal RFC just yet.
Personally I'd love to have this feature because as a translator, I 
wouldn't have to worry about translating the name of an instrument and 
making it impossible for an end-user to find said instrument when 
editing from a different-language release.
An entity-ified instrument would simply have an alias for a language and 
searching for a Harpsichord would automatically select the Klavecimbel 
or Cembalo from the instrument list, depending on the language the site 
is viewed in.
It would also move the translations of instruments away from the (IMO) 
cumbersome Transifex to the more manageable MusicBrainz editing system.
I understand not everybody shares my ideas about the increased ease for 
translating (see Mihkel Tõnnov's comment on the issue page), so I wonder 
what everybody else's opinion would be.

Maurits Meulenbelt

* http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-3674

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style