« Return to Thread: Clarification needed on remastered releases.
Re: ReleaseGroupsAlternative (was: Clarification needed on remastered releases.)
by Gecks
::
Rate this Message:
On 03/07/06, Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@...> wrote:
> Chris Bransden wrote:
> > well I've always found NGS and the like to be somewhat to abstract a
> > concept to evaluate fully. It's one proposal that links to a number of
> > other proposals, all of which add up to...[unknown] :)
>
> That's not really true (anymore). It takes some ideas from other proposals and therefore links to them, right. But NGS itself became more than that, it has new ideas that have nothing to do with ReleaseGroups or AlbumRework and it is more than just outlining them. I did my best to describe the current state on the NGS page. The in-depth documentation behind that, ObjectModel, is not yet complete, that is true.
i didn't mean to say it wasn't clear/complete, just that i can't
personally get my head around what i'm going to be looking at on an
artist page/through the tagger when/if any of this comes to fruition.
with much of the server changes, i just find them difficult to
visualise till i actually use them.
you wouldn't think i spend all day working on database software but
there you go :)
> > i've done my
> > best to read through it again today and put my thoughts regarding an
> > alternative here -
> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ReleaseGroupsAlternative - but whether or
> > not my ideas work alongside what NGS proposes I don't know because I
> > don't fully understand it.
>
> What you are proposing is what my initial idea for AlbumRework was: sharing data. My idea was to split data down to a set of minimal objects which can be linked in a very sophisticated way to be able to reuse as much of the data as possible. And this covered more than just separating tracklistings from release info - because you can't stop there, that only solves half of the problems. We discussed that alot on the last summit and came to the result that the structure for this would be too complex. All the interlinking would make the database unusable. The alternative (as proposed by Don) was a simple hierarchical structure which implies lots of duplication but also makes accessing it much more realistic.
i guess i don't see why seperating tracklistings from releases would
be too complex. what i propose is simply making our current release
events cover more than just date and country, but format, label, cat#,
and so forth.
> Steve Wyles said it quite well: "disc space is cheap". It's then only a question of adding the right features to tame the duplication (problems with inconsistent tracklistings for example or the fact that you will be presented several releases for a disc ID lookup). The good news is that the design for NGS itself already holds good means for this. That's what all the grouping is needed for. Discogs duplicates but discogs does not group the duplicated data. AdvancedRelationships will be no problem because they are not restricted to link on the lowest level in the hierarchie. Indeed solving our current AR linking problems is one of the main reasons for NGS.
>
> You propose to separate products if they have a different tracklisting only. That's not how the reality works in my eyes. "Album X with 10 tracks" is a different release than "Album X with 10 tracks + bonus DVD Y" is a different than "Album X with 11 tracks". The same applies to releases on different labels, remasters, box set releases and whatnot.
not to me! that's pretty much my entire arguement :) you can say a
release is available as different products without making a seoerate
entry, as i've shown. i don't see why this isn't possible, but then i
don't know the layout of the DB...
> Finally I have to say: I'm not at MusicBrainz for tagging. I'm here because I have a vision of an all-embracing music database and about the power of a working community. And I see that I can turn my ideas into reality here.
> And if you look at what MusicBrainz already is and who already depends on us then it should be quite obvious that we are already more than a pure tagging database.
look where? i see tagger users editing the data, and i see 'expert'
users adding further stuff like cat# etc to the annotation. the latter
are going the extra mile, and i'd like to make it so that info is
useful, but i don't see this as being synonymous as making umpteen
tracklist entries, all saying the same thing.
it seems there is a school of thought that says the only reason we
merge products together with the same tracklistings is because the
database can't handle things any other way. this may be true, but i
think this has perhaps unintentionally meant we have discographies
free from the gumpf that places like discogs are plagued with.
at discogs we got round it by having a 'copy to draft' facilty that
dupilicates a release, so you can edit the things that are different
on your edition (typically label, country, release date, cat#, etc),
and submit it. however this is a hack - you're still creating a dupe
of data, so why not just allow the submission of product info to
existing releases, rather than entire new releases all the time?
incidently, discogs is moving to a system similar to what i propose in
the future, i believe.
> Oh and: last I looked Wikipedia linked to MB, not Discogs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) - and just
generally i see discogs cited a lot more in wikipedia than
musicbrainz, and really would you argue that we're a better
discography site than discogs right now?
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
> Chris Bransden wrote:
> > well I've always found NGS and the like to be somewhat to abstract a
> > concept to evaluate fully. It's one proposal that links to a number of
> > other proposals, all of which add up to...[unknown] :)
>
> That's not really true (anymore). It takes some ideas from other proposals and therefore links to them, right. But NGS itself became more than that, it has new ideas that have nothing to do with ReleaseGroups or AlbumRework and it is more than just outlining them. I did my best to describe the current state on the NGS page. The in-depth documentation behind that, ObjectModel, is not yet complete, that is true.
i didn't mean to say it wasn't clear/complete, just that i can't
personally get my head around what i'm going to be looking at on an
artist page/through the tagger when/if any of this comes to fruition.
with much of the server changes, i just find them difficult to
visualise till i actually use them.
you wouldn't think i spend all day working on database software but
there you go :)
> > i've done my
> > best to read through it again today and put my thoughts regarding an
> > alternative here -
> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ReleaseGroupsAlternative - but whether or
> > not my ideas work alongside what NGS proposes I don't know because I
> > don't fully understand it.
>
> What you are proposing is what my initial idea for AlbumRework was: sharing data. My idea was to split data down to a set of minimal objects which can be linked in a very sophisticated way to be able to reuse as much of the data as possible. And this covered more than just separating tracklistings from release info - because you can't stop there, that only solves half of the problems. We discussed that alot on the last summit and came to the result that the structure for this would be too complex. All the interlinking would make the database unusable. The alternative (as proposed by Don) was a simple hierarchical structure which implies lots of duplication but also makes accessing it much more realistic.
i guess i don't see why seperating tracklistings from releases would
be too complex. what i propose is simply making our current release
events cover more than just date and country, but format, label, cat#,
and so forth.
> Steve Wyles said it quite well: "disc space is cheap". It's then only a question of adding the right features to tame the duplication (problems with inconsistent tracklistings for example or the fact that you will be presented several releases for a disc ID lookup). The good news is that the design for NGS itself already holds good means for this. That's what all the grouping is needed for. Discogs duplicates but discogs does not group the duplicated data. AdvancedRelationships will be no problem because they are not restricted to link on the lowest level in the hierarchie. Indeed solving our current AR linking problems is one of the main reasons for NGS.
>
> You propose to separate products if they have a different tracklisting only. That's not how the reality works in my eyes. "Album X with 10 tracks" is a different release than "Album X with 10 tracks + bonus DVD Y" is a different than "Album X with 11 tracks". The same applies to releases on different labels, remasters, box set releases and whatnot.
not to me! that's pretty much my entire arguement :) you can say a
release is available as different products without making a seoerate
entry, as i've shown. i don't see why this isn't possible, but then i
don't know the layout of the DB...
> Finally I have to say: I'm not at MusicBrainz for tagging. I'm here because I have a vision of an all-embracing music database and about the power of a working community. And I see that I can turn my ideas into reality here.
> And if you look at what MusicBrainz already is and who already depends on us then it should be quite obvious that we are already more than a pure tagging database.
look where? i see tagger users editing the data, and i see 'expert'
users adding further stuff like cat# etc to the annotation. the latter
are going the extra mile, and i'd like to make it so that info is
useful, but i don't see this as being synonymous as making umpteen
tracklist entries, all saying the same thing.
it seems there is a school of thought that says the only reason we
merge products together with the same tracklistings is because the
database can't handle things any other way. this may be true, but i
think this has perhaps unintentionally meant we have discographies
free from the gumpf that places like discogs are plagued with.
at discogs we got round it by having a 'copy to draft' facilty that
dupilicates a release, so you can edit the things that are different
on your edition (typically label, country, release date, cat#, etc),
and submit it. however this is a hack - you're still creating a dupe
of data, so why not just allow the submission of product info to
existing releases, rather than entire new releases all the time?
incidently, discogs is moving to a system similar to what i propose in
the future, i believe.
> Oh and: last I looked Wikipedia linked to MB, not Discogs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) - and just
generally i see discogs cited a lot more in wikipedia than
musicbrainz, and really would you argue that we're a better
discography site than discogs right now?
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
« Return to Thread: Clarification needed on remastered releases.
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
