2011/8/9, Paul C. Bryan :
> On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 10:36 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
>
>> 2011/8/8, Paul C. Bryan :
>> > 3. Punctuation still seems problematic. I would definitely recommend a
>> > comma between the work title and the catalog number, as in: &qu
read. But why there and not "Sonate für Klavier, Nr. 29 B-Dur Op. 106"
or "Sonate für Klavier Nr. 29, B-Dur Op. 106" or...?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
_
;> bad when we know a title is being *consistently* in a certain different
>> way
>> that is not matching some people’s personal preferences.
>
> I don't understand what you mean by "φ"...
I guess jesus2099 meant "physical", material
--
Frederic Da
2011/8/6, SwissChris :
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>> 2011/8/5 SwissChris
>>
>>> We should clearly keep classical out of this debate, since "arrangement"
>>> in classical also stands for everything we'd
y: if I don't really understand, probably many non-English users will
hesitate too.
--
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
2011/8/5 Alex Mauer
> On 08/05/2011 02:19 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> > It's been more than 2 months, but a discussion with Jesus2099 made me
> > realize this: a new arranger should not be considered as a sufficient
> reason
> > to create a new Work. AFAI
2011/8/5 Frederic Da Vitoria
> 2011/8/5 jesus2099
>
>> SL>> I can see the Arranger AR at work level as useful being useful for
>> Classical
>> SL>> primarily (and maybe a few other genres that I don't have experience
>> with)
>> SL>>
esus2099 made me
realize this: a new arranger should not be considered as a sufficient reason
to create a new Work. AFAIK the rules for considering 2 recordings are still
being discussed, but a new arranger is not a reason IMO.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l&
that’s how people who agreed with adding
> work-artist arrange link feel too.
>
As I said, I wouldn't want too much variations of a work, Works are still
for me a way of grouping Recordings, so if almost each Recording has it's
own Work, this would effectively cancel any grouping.
. So I partially agree with jesus2099
here: we should discourage Work duplication and state that users
should not create a new Work merely to link it to an arranger.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
and we cram music
information in it (and lose every part of data which does not fit in
the rigid structure), or we accept that music is larger and more
complex than any system we will ever be able to build and we learn to
live with the deficiencies of our machines.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(d
ot;That' the right way" according to you, not to me :-) Aggregating
Works your way loses information I find valuable. While with a little
SQL magic, it should be possible to collate your view from my
hierarchy. Note that I'd probably use your view too at times. But at
other times, I
eate a separate MB Work in non
classical music, so that it will be our job, editors as well as voters
to decide for each arrangement whether it should be entered as a
separate MB Work or not.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel
arch urtexts. I'd like a guideline that is applied universally
> across all composers so that I get consistent tags, too.
What canonical name would you suggest?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april
t, having separate guidelines for titles
> and recordings means it's more difficult to maintain MusicBrainz.
I disagree: As-printed wouldn't require a difficult guideline, while I
am still unsure of the differences between tracks and recordings
following your proposal. Because you although
anyone to understand
someone who does not state his point of view.
You want something? Ok, but the least you can do is say so. The "you"
in my 2 last sentences were not for you Jesus2099, since you precisely
are saying what you think :-)
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l&#x
rtett in G, K. 80/73f
> > Instruments: 2 violins, viola, cello (OR string quartet?)
>
> Ideally, the instruments themselves would be entities (so they can
> have aliases, link to wikipedia pages, etc.). In any case, both of
> these solutions are long term, so we have time to
. During practical editing, users will
often have to edit both in the same session. For example, entering a
classical music release, the user will have to enter a classical track and a
classical recording, it would be very useful if the documentation explained:
"in tracks enter this, (
2011/7/26, Ryan Torchia :
> 2011/7/26 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
>
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Ryan Torchia
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:18 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <
>> davito...@gmail.com>
>> > wro
Oops, I was convinced I was on your sandbox. Undone. Thanks for
copying my modifications to your sandbox.
2011/7/26, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren :
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>> Done. Sorry, I forgot to give an edit comment on my second edit. I
&
Done. Sorry, I forgot to give an edit comment on my second edit. I
edited the guidelines too, but if anyone disagrees, please undo.
2011/7/26, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren :
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>> I also think "This links two versions
sions is derived from the other".
2011/7/26, Frederic Da Vitoria :
> I think the guidelines 1, 3 & 4 are completely off-topic :-)
>
> The second is wrong in this context IMO. If C is derived from B and B
> is derived from A, I'd prefer it if we linked the Works that way.
&
wiki.musicbrainz.org/Other_Version_Relationship_Type a bit so
> it reflects what it actually does now, but of course it still has no
> updated guidelines, as those would need to go through the list anyway.
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
I can imagine a parody in another language
than the original, and in this case "translated" would not be really
correct.
I guess creating the UI for such an AR would be possible, but what
about the wordings?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et dé
song]
Torc, you may have given here the best argument for Nicolás'
suggestion to set Derivative as a parent of Other version: the fact
that we will probably often be unable to choose if it is close enough
to be considered as another version.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
2011/7/25, symphonick :
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:10:31 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>> Maybe there are two "derivative works". I'd say there is a general
>> abstract (in the OOP sense of the word) derivative work which would
>> include anything
2011/7/25, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren :
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>> 2011/7/25, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren :
>>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Other_Version_Relationship_Type is
>>> completely outdated / wrong (it seems it was &q
ution would change the meaning of existing ARs. I
don't see any reason to say that "derivative work" is the parent of
"other version" either. Why does one have to be the parent of the
other, couldn't they be siblings?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de
2011/7/25, Ryan Torchia :
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
> Not to be a complete pain, but would anybody else prefer just changing paper
> sleeve to something like "cardboard/paper sleeve". I'm just thinking about
> a bunch of
ask anyone in the street what he understands if told about "paper
> sleeve") or "Other", both quite crappy options. So, let's add
> Cardboard Sleeve, shall we?
Yes, this makes sense to me. Sometimes, pure scientific consistency
must give way to bad usage :-)
--
Frederic Da
2011/7/21 Aurélien Mino
> On 07/21/2011 01:20 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> > so that your example is theoretical to me :-)
> >
>
> Theoretical, like your editing activity on MB since NGS release...? :-)
>
Exactly. But my remark was not aggressive, I suppose Lukáš u
2011/7/21, Lukáš Lalinský :
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>> More generally, I'm starting to wonder if we should not request
>> Advanced Attributes. These would work like Advanced Relationships but
>> instead of linking 2 items, the
ch property, only those where editors have
found it relevant), I'm sure we could find quite a lot of uses. But I
guess this would require a separate thread.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
_
> release groups,
> > and that none yet exist for tracks and release titles other than
> > http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Track_and_release_titles
> >
> > RFC Expiry Date: 28th of July, 2011 (in 7 days)
> >
> > Comments?
>
> I'd like to veto this RF
2011/7/21 Lukáš Lalinský
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
> > 2011/7/21, Lukáš Lalinský :
> >> Oh, and to give an example of recording/title artist credits.
> >> http://musicbrainz.org/release/611e82cc-5db0-39d0-b47e-df42b75c74
2011/7/21 Lukáš Lalinský
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
> > I'm going to need a little more info :-)
> >
> > 2011/7/21, Lukáš Lalinský :
> >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> >> wrote:
>
so I'd use Yazoo,
so that your example is theoretical to me :-)
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrai
I'm going to need a little more info :-)
2011/7/21, Lukáš Lalinský :
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>> Could you give actual examples of your issues? I find it difficult to
>> understand what you think is wrong.
>
> 1. http://music
d work like Advanced Relationships but
instead of linking 2 items, they would be linked to only one item. We
could categorize AAs just like we do with ARs, create new ones, add
AAs to elements which need them, all this without requiring a schema
modification. For example, in this case, we'd ne
people (and I expect they are vast majority of MB users),
> NGS is worse than MB was before.
>
> Do you think it's possible to revert these style guidelines at this
> point? I expect that most people either never read them or ignored
> them, so there isn't much data changes,
ield cannot be set for alias #2).
Too bad. When we discussed of catalogs earlier, we forgot that putting
some catalog numbers in comments would probably mean that they are not
searchable.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
htt
2011/7/20, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren :
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>> 2011/7/20, symphonick :
>>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:55:34 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I'm not so sure about th
2011/7/20, symphonick :
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:55:34 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>>> I'm not so sure about the English title for the cantata; to me it looks
>>> weird if the cantata is sung with German text. Perhaps we need to take
>>> the
&
addition to this
> performance relation, you should link a karaoke track to its
> original version with the [Karaoke Relationship Type].
+1 This could not happen if karaoke and instrumental had been mutually
exclusive attributes of the performance AR, but of course this woul
2011/7/20, symphonick :
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:22:47 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>>> Aliases: For titled works, use only if the work is known locally under a
>>> different name.
>
>> What do you mean here by "locally"? Locally to the
ic roles are not part of the title. Can we agree on using the
> annotation, or does anyone really want:
> Nixon in China: Act 3 "I am no one" (Mao, Chou, Kissinger, Chiang Ch'ing,
> Pat, Nixon)
>
I vote for using the annotation.
> Q2: Delimiters?
>
>
> Enou
is. Also in the examples above, should "Ballet" and "Orchestral" be
> lowercase?
>
I think you are right, since they are not part of the title, I'd put them in
lowercase.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logic
for the time being.
I agree. But I guess sometimes we will have to do exceptions for some works.
An idea: we could decide to put catalog numbers in the comment instead
of the title... No, I guess the comment is not used by searches and
searching by number is definit
ecorded between 2010-07-03 and 2010-07-12". This is not a
problem of "exact" date, but rather of recording a poorly defined
date.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
_
2011/7/19, symphonick :
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:13:00 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>>>> And create 32 ARs for a global performance of the Goldberg Variations?
>>>> It
>>>> seems a little overkill to me, but if you feel it is really important
2011/7/18, symphonick :
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:23:14 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>>> I agree. So what I'm trying to say is that it is - as always -
>>> preferable
>>> to be as specific as possible, if the data is available. & if we kno
2011/7/18 symphonick
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:02:02 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
> > 2011/7/18, symphonick :
>
> >> 1. A performance AR between a recording & the appropriate movements is
> >> the
> >> most accurate we can do.
> >&g
2011/7/18, symphonick :
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:29:56 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>>>> 2011/7/18, symphonick :
>
>>>> Recording linked to the super-work: fuzzy - a performance of the whole
>>>> super-work, but unsure about exactly which p
be much simpler.
And don't try to sell me a 2-level normalization system. I already had
difficulties to memorize a few of the mysterious rules of the pre-NGS
one-level system, I'd never manage to learn a 2-level system.
--
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
2011/7/18, symphonick :
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:43:33 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>> 2011/7/18, symphonick :
>
>> Recording linked to the super-work: fuzzy - a performance of the whole
>> super-work, but unsure about exactly which parts are performed
>
2011/7/18, Frederic Da Vitoria :
> 2011/7/18, symphonick :
> Isn't this what the "partial" attribute is for? Or do you mean the
> editor doesn't even know if the performance is partial or not? But
> then, when ARing to a movement, how are we sure it is a full
>
2011/7/18, symphonick :
Isn't this what the "partial" attribute is for? Or do you mean the
editor doesn't even know if the performance is partial or not? But
then, when ARing to a movement, how are we sure it is a full
performance of the movement?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
full opera in one take...
--
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
>
I disagree. Not with merging remixes into one work (which is probably the
best idea IMO) but with removing this from this list. This is a list of
issues. remixes is one of those issues. We should address it.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et déf
uld be if we would have different
> releases for different encodings look at this:
> http://www.discogs.com/master/79823
>
I disagree about "not useful", but I agree "not useful enough for the amount
of data which would probably have to be added" :-)
--
F
fferent concert the following day.
>
> That seems very confusing to me as well.
>
I agree. I am glad we don't record hours, because this would be very
difficult to solve :-)
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et déf
27;t think that data duplication between wikipedia and MB is a good
argument. If we start removing everything wikipedia has, MB will become
unusable :-) I disagree also strongly that original country does not belong
in a musical database. The original country is much more music relevant
y a few seconds shorter
> than
> > their album versions, but there's also cases like the Yes singles
> mentioned
> > above, or the single edit of "Thick as a Brick".
>
> I would use "partial performance of work" for those.
>
I suggest we stick to
new cover a different work? If not, is there a point (which may
be difficult to define) where the answer would be yes? I guess most users
agree on the answers, but it should at least be clearly stated.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel
historical country data anywhere? I'm not sure we really want to get
>>> > involved in deciding what was a country or not ourselves...
>>> >
>>> > Nikki
>>>
>>> _______
>>> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
>>> Music
derstand, if the list should stay as it is and the field should
contain the modern day country, how or when do you suggest we use historical
country? Or did you mean something like adding a field for the historical
country?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April -
2011/7/14 Ryan Torchia
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>> 2011/7/13, Ryan Torchia :
>> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> From my non-English's point of
2011/7/13, Ryan Torchia :
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>> From my non-English's point of view, I prefer "with" to "With",
>> precisely because it is different. I always find disturbing that there
>> is no w
2011/7/13, Frederic Da Vitoria :
> 2011/7/13, Ryan Torchia :
>> 2011/7/12 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Simon Reinhardt
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Shouldn't artist credits completely follow the re
either way, but we should at least have a
> standard so we can aim for consistency.
>From my non-English's point of view, I prefer "with" to "With",
precisely because it is different. I always find disturbing that there
is no way to distinguish what we add to t
significantly different
digital transfers (case 1), how do we decide which of those transfers
was used for the final encoding, at least in the case of lossy
encodings. Sometimes there are indications, but when there are none?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l&
ng "good" recordings,
these catchall recordings would gradually lose links to tracks.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
___
MusicBrainz-style mailin
l mastering and (re-)mixing)" mean that different masters
should be represented by different recordings or not? If they should be
separated, then merging them could be dangerous because it could lead to
merging a poor-quality transfer, a good quality later transfer, and a
not-so-good still later
eparate live recordings from the same series of
concerts.
--
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
2011/7/10 Nikki
> Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> > Maybe with an example? I can't recall one in English-speaking releases. I
> > can only offer this one in French:
> > http://musicbrainz.org/recording/41609890-c0bb-4d73-9e4c-fa7ed6e5aa0b.
> Of
> > course, it i
. I
can only offer this one in French:
http://musicbrainz.org/recording/41609890-c0bb-4d73-9e4c-fa7ed6e5aa0b. Of
course, it is not yet edited accordingly to the new Style for compilation
recordings.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre
gt; > Well, so what do you/others suggest? Change the guideline? I fear I have
>> > to remove the standalone recordings for hidden tracks again... it
>> > doesn't feel right if the guideline forbids it.
>> >
>> > Maybe it is better to link the combined record
2011/7/4, Kuno Woudt :
> Hello,
>
> On 04/07/11 10:03, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
>> I think Torc was right in his method (although I may disagree in his
>> conclusions). Before defining what (and how) we want to store, we
>> should answer to the question "what f
should answer to the question "what for". As long as we don't clearly
define the aims, we will have fruitless discussions because we will
effectively and unknowingly be discussing different things.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défend
2011/7/1, Johannes Weißl :
> Hello Frederic,
>
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 12:19:30PM +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
>> > Track relationships and recording relationships are the same thing.
>>
>> Was this done deliberately? Now that I think of it, I guess the real
&
2011/7/1, Nikki :
> Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
>>> The Compilation AR applies currently to tracks only. For your
>>> suggestion to work, it would have to be extended to work for
>>> Recordings too.
>
> Track relationships and recording relationships are the sam
2011/7/1, Frederic Da Vitoria :
> 2011/7/1, Michael Wiencek :
>> The proposed RFC will modify the multiple titles style page[1] for
>> recordings/release groups and replace it with this one:
>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Bitmap/Multiple_titles
>>
>>
extended to work for
Recordings too. But then, I wonder if the word "Compilation" is
appropriate. Maybe a more generic word, for example "join" would be
better suited, which means that instead of extending the Compilation
AR, we should create a new recording-recording AR.
--
2011/6/30, Frederic Da Vitoria :
> 2011/6/30, symphonick :
>> 2011/6/30 Frederic Da Vitoria
>>
>>>
>>> But by removing the AR, you are saying that the recording is not from
>>> the Planets, which is not inaccurate: it is completely false.
>>>
2011/6/30, symphonick :
> 2011/6/30 Frederic Da Vitoria
>
>>
>> But by removing the AR, you are saying that the recording is not from
>> the Planets, which is not inaccurate: it is completely false.
>>
>
> No, I am saying that it is not a recording of all the
the AR, you are saying that the recording is not from
the Planets, which is not inaccurate: it is completely false.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
___
Musi
nnot have partial performances.
>>
>>
> Just a very short answer for know: a super-work / agregate work is not = a
> work.
Too short answer :-) Could you explain why not?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir e
current simple list, all
formats should be completely unambiguous.
--
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
nz.org/edit/14554609
> [3]
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Performed_Relationship_Type_Attributes
+1
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@
2011/6/24 Nikki
> Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> > Ok, I reformulate my question: Do we want to record ISO-compliant
> > country, a political country or Artist Intent? The ISO list is only a
> > starting point, and I believe it was not meant to be enforced.
>
> I'
Brittany,
>
> To answer to the purpose to introduce the country field should be addressed
> first.
2 and 3 are the ones I would find the most useful, as they could show
me similarities between artists.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Mem
AR, a Home Country AR, a Nationality AR and so on. But
we could as well decide to create only one AR for all of these if we
decide using all would be too much.
> Sebastien
>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>> 2011/6/24, Lemire, Sebastien :
>&g
n-quebecois artists. And also,
> I'm not even of the minority that wants to separate...
Ah, yes, of course, how could I miss this obvious and frequent issue
with the strictly administrative way of dealing with this issue :-)
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - «
2011/6/24, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren :
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>> 2011/6/24, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren :
>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Kuno Woudt wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> On 22/06/11 10:
n, then this
is Artist Intent and I don't see how the edits could be contested.
Actually, we are currently contradicting Artist Intent by refusing to
acknowledge such statements from artists. Which means that the real
question is: should we follow such a guide? Do we want to follow an
ISO
as CD-R." It absolutely
does not change the meaning, it only makes the rule more immediately
visible. I guess using commas instead of parentheses would work too.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logici
el catalogs, but also making search more technically
efficient. The only way I can see to implement it in the current database
structure would be to use ARs, linking a Work to a Catalog. We don't have a
Catalog table currently, but maybe we could use the Works table until a
Catalog table is c
ll. There are many variations of jewel boxes, this is just
> one of them, I see no need to distinguish between them.
I like Super Jewel Boxes (I love the way the booklet is inserted and
removed). But I don't think that we need that level of information.
Using a generic Jewel gives us enough i
Slim Jewel Case" into "Jewel Case" too, in your
> opinion? (I wouldn't mind it myself either way, but if not it feels
> weird)
I am not so sure, but there is one difference: the Slim Jewel Case
does not allow for a booklet. Of course, Jewe
Russian composers to Russian Federation, you
> could just not set a country for them (it's not mandatory after all).
I don't think we should mix historical origin with hard rules. The
list was taken from the ISO list, but AFAIK, it was never said that it
should or should not u
601 - 700 of 1759 matches
Mail list logo
