Discussion:
[mb-style] STYLE-331 recap
caller#6
2014-10-26 06:13:48 UTC
Permalink
---------
Recap
---------

Okay, so STYLE-331 was meant to be a way to link 2-in-1s to their "parts".

This was going to be the first of 3 (maybe?) similar relationships.
Examples:

[release group b]<includes>[release group a]:
"This 2-in-1/box/whatever includes these previous albums/EPs/whatever."

[release]<includes>[release group]:
"This reissue includes this EP/whatever as bonus tracks".

[release]<contains>[release]:
"This multi-disc set (or box) is also available as separate discs
w/ same catno, barcode etc. "

---------------------
Complications
---------------------

As KRSCuan pointed out, it might be confusing and/or error-prone to have
three very similar relationships.

His suggestion IIUC is to have only one, release<>release-group, which
could cover the first two cases (with a tiny bit of redundancy but much
less room for error) and ignore the third.

Also, to some extent this depends on the fate of "STYLE-335: Add "Box
set" as a primary type of Release Group"

----------------
My opinion
----------------

I can see the merits of both courses. And maybe the third case isn't
common enough to really matter?

------
Link
------

Ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-331
Tom Crocker
2014-10-26 08:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Seems like a fair recap. If the BDFL asked for my opinion I'd say they
could decide on these two (330&331), the principles of which didn't seem
very controversial (only the precise choice of relationships) and then
consider 335 later. It means we don't end up in a 3-way headlock

Loading...