Terminology for NGS

[Simon Reinhardt]

Hi,

I need some helping hands to find the best terminology for the next generation schema. There are some terms I'm not yet happy with and I think we should better adjust them now before we start heavily documenting and planing the details and hammering it into everyone's brain.

For the current terminology see http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ObjectModel.
The terms I'm mostly unhappy with are:

ReleaseArtist. As you can see, there's some discussion about this on the page. The main point is: at the moment we already use the term "release artist" for the artist which is linked to a release. So far it wouldn't be bad but the term "release" is ambiguous anyways. We use it to describe the whole thing you get which holds a set of tracks. But tracks themselves are also "released".
Release artist in NGS means: a label which describes how an artist is written on a release. This doesn't have to be the artist for the whole release only but also for single tracks (on VA-releases for example). So the release artist object is used as a connector between the artist object and [the release object|the track object].
Well for more, see the discussion on the page. :)

AlbumObject. As of now we are replacing most mentions of the term "album" with "release" because a release can either be an album, a compilation, a single and so on. In NGS, the release is still entitled release. But there is an object "album" which groups all releases which are just different versions/editions of the same basic idea. Of course this mostly applies to albums, they are often released in a lot of editions and they are mainly the ones we want to group. But it also works for other release types: we could group different editions of a single (like the UK singles with disc numbers) [*], re-releases of compilations, remasters of live releases and whatnot. There are even VA-compilations which are released in different editions (Bravo Hits for example has different releases for Germany, Austria and Switzerland, mostly it's just one song which is different in the tracklisting). So, as grouping does not only make sense for albums, the term "album" is probably a bad choi
ce.

Thanks,
  Simon


----
[*] Ok, singles are perhaps a special case since the different editions have completely different tracklistings so there's not much they have in common to justify grouping them. Perhaps a cover designer. On the other hand, that's only the linking aspect of the grouping idea. The other aspect is to have a nicer looking discography page with just one entity for all the editions. For that it's ok to group singles.

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-experts mailing list
Musicbrainz-experts@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-experts

[Alex Dupuy]

On July 8, 2006, at 6:37, Simon Reinhardt wrote:

> ReleaseArtist.

> Release artist in NGS means: a label which describes how an artist  
> is written on a release.

Perhaps an alternate terminology might be CreditedArtist.  I'm not  
sure that ReleaseArtist is so bad, though, and CreditedArtist isn't  
perfect.

I suspect further discussion of these should be on the Wiki, though,  
and not this mailing list?

@alex


_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-experts mailing list
Musicbrainz-experts@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-experts

[Simon Reinhardt]

Alexander Dupuy wrote:
> Perhaps an alternate terminology might be CreditedArtist.  I'm not sure
> that ReleaseArtist is so bad, though, and CreditedArtist isn't perfect.

Don had proposed AttributedArtist which isn't so bad either.

> I suspect further discussion of these should be on the Wiki, though, and
> not this mailing list?

Why? The wiki gets no attention and discussing there doesn't work as well as on the mailing lists. I don't want to wait another 5000 years for someone to answer. ;)

Simon (Shepard)

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-experts mailing list
Musicbrainz-experts@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-experts

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2006/7/8, Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@...>:

> Hi,
>
> I need some helping hands to find the best terminology for the next generation schema. There are some terms I'm not yet happy with and I think we should better adjust them now before we start heavily documenting and planing the details and hammering it into everyone's brain.
>
> For the current terminology see http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ObjectModel.
> The terms I'm mostly unhappy with are:
>
> ReleaseArtist. As you can see, there's some discussion about this on the page. The main point is: at the moment we already use the term "release artist" for the artist which is linked to a release. So far it wouldn't be bad but the term "release" is ambiguous anyways. We use it to describe the whole thing you get which holds a set of tracks. But tracks themselves are also "released".
> Release artist in NGS means: a label which describes how an artist is written on a release. This doesn't have to be the artist for the whole release only but also for single tracks (on VA-releases for example). So the release artist object is used as a connector between the artist object and [the release object|the track object].
> Well for more, see the discussion on the page. :)

I understand the difference between ReleaseArtist and TrackArtist, but
I don't understand why you need an abstract ArtistLabel (to use the
terminology you suggested). Where would this abstract denomination be
used?


> AlbumObject. As of now we are replacing most mentions of the term "album" with "release" because a release can either be an album, a compilation, a single and so on. In NGS, the release is still entitled release. But there is an object "album" which groups all releases which are just different versions/editions of the same basic idea. Of course this mostly applies to albums, they are often released in a lot of editions and they are mainly the ones we want to group. But it also works for other release types: we could group different editions of a single (like the UK singles with disc numbers) [*], re-releases of compilations, remasters of live releases and whatnot. There are even VA-compilations which are released in different editions (Bravo Hits for example has different releases for Germany, Austria and Switzerland, mostly it's just one song which is different in the tracklisting). So, as grouping does not only make sense for albums, the term "album" is probably a bad choice.

What about GenericRelease? I don't like it much, but this is the
closest I can find to what I think you are trying to mean.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-experts mailing list
Musicbrainz-experts@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-experts

[Simon Reinhardt]

Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> I understand the difference between ReleaseArtist and TrackArtist, but
> I don't understand why you need an abstract ArtistLabel (to use the
> terminology you suggested). Where would this abstract denomination be
> used?

Hmm. I could lose many words on this but I could also just link you to http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/NextGenerationSchema#head-c5107968e1b3a39fbc3c9754ed0b59b0b9f3f82a where I explained it. :)
If that leaves you with questions, I'll try to answer them!

> What about GenericRelease? I don't like it much, but this is the
> closest I can find to what I think you are trying to mean.

It's not so intuitive but it's something to start with. Thanks!

More ideas? :)

Simon (Shepard)

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-experts mailing list
Musicbrainz-experts@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-experts

[keschte]

 

from a music theory standpoint: CreditedArtist, from a musicbrainz terminology standpoint: ReleaseArtist. it depends which terminology we want to use, the one we are --[  more or less? ;-)   ]-- familar with, or the one other people who come from a different perception of the music data might be more familar with... this is a difficult choice, and as alex said, ReleaseArtist isn't that bad.

 

For the release parent object, i'd suggest to keep it simple and name it "ReleaseGroup", since we could define more than one grouping object type (a series of compilations, or different editions of an album is not the same IMHO)

 

 

On 7/11/06, Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@...> wrote:

Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> I understand the difference between ReleaseArtist and TrackArtist, but
> I don't understand why you need an abstract ArtistLabel (to use the
> terminology you suggested). Where would this abstract denomination be
> used?

Hmm. I could lose many words on this but I could also just link you to http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/NextGenerationSchema#head-c5107968e1b3a39fbc3c9754ed0b59b0b9f3f82a where I explained it. :)
If that leaves you with questions, I'll try to answer them!

> What about GenericRelease? I don't like it much, but this is the
> closest I can find to what I think you are trying to mean.

It's not so intuitive but it's something to start with. Thanks!

More ideas? :)

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-experts mailing list
Musicbrainz-experts@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-experts

[Simon Reinhardt]

Stefan Kestenholz wrote:
>  
> from a music theory standpoint: CreditedArtist, from a musicbrainz
> terminology standpoint: ReleaseArtist. it depends which terminology we
> want to use, the one we are --[  more or less? ;-)   ]-- familar with,
> or the one other people who come from a different perception of the
> music data might be more familar with... this is a difficult choice,
> and as alex said, ReleaseArtist isn't that bad.

Of course it sounds nice and intuitive and I'd like to use it too, but then we really have ambiguity in this term, unless we invent a new term for what release artist currently means - and I think the term release artist in its current definition is important to be differentiated from track artist since we have a whole guideline based on this (ReleaseArtistStyle).

> For the release parent object, i'd suggest to keep it simple and name it
> "ReleaseGroup", since we could define more than one grouping object type
> (a series of compilations, or different editions of an album is not the
> same IMHO)

This is a whole new can of worms you are opening. :)
Differentiating between grouping objects for series, album editions, and so on makes the current model much more complicated and needs lots of re-planning. I mean, it would be nice to have more detail in it just as in trackgrouping (so we could group remasters of albums, re-releases, different editions, complete new recordings) but that's not an easy task and will also make the interface for it very tricky. I'm not sure if this is needed.

Simon (Shepard)

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-experts mailing list
Musicbrainz-experts@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-experts

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2006/7/11, Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@...>:
> Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> > I understand the difference between ReleaseArtist and TrackArtist, but
> > I don't understand why you need an abstract ArtistLabel (to use the
> > terminology you suggested). Where would this abstract denomination be
> > used?
>
> Hmm. I could lose many words on this but I could also just link you to http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/NextGenerationSchema#head-c5107968e1b3a39fbc3c9754ed0b59b0b9f3f82a where I explained it. :)
> If that leaves you with questions, I'll try to answer them!

Ok, I think I've got it. And now I fully understand why you suggested
ArtistLabel.

> > What about GenericRelease? I don't like it much, but this is the
> > closest I can find to what I think you are trying to mean.
>
> It's not so intuitive but it's something to start with. Thanks!
>
> More ideas? :)

ReleaseCluster?

--
Frederic Da Vitoria

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-experts mailing list
Musicbrainz-experts@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-experts

[DonRedman]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:10:40 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:

>> > What about GenericRelease? I don't like it much, but this is the
>> > closest I can find to what I think you are trying to mean.

> ReleaseCluster?

Cluster is a Bad Bad Word. We have already used it once where it did not  
belong and should not repeat that mistake.

I think credited artist or attributed artist makes the most sense, since  
it clearly states "This one is on the 'what it is called' side". I have no  
preference for either of them, though.

I would not rename the release object. There is nothing wrong with the  
naming of that one.

   DonRedman

--
Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiDocs,
the MusicBrainz documentation system.
Go to http://musicbrainz.org/doc/<SomeTerm>
(you might need to transform the term to singular)

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-experts mailing list
Musicbrainz-experts@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-experts

[Simon Reinhardt]

Don Redman wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:10:40 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
>
>>> > What about GenericRelease? I don't like it much, but this is the
>>> > closest I can find to what I think you are trying to mean.
>
>> ReleaseCluster?
>
> Cluster is a Bad Bad Word. We have already used it once where it did not
> belong and should not repeat that mistake.

Oh? Curious why it is bad.

> I think credited artist or attributed artist makes the most sense, since
> it clearly states "This one is on the 'what it is called' side". I have
> no preference for either of them, though.

I also think either of those it be. I prefer credited artist.

> I would not rename the release object. There is nothing wrong with the
> naming of that one.

Just to make sure there are no misunderstandings: no plans to rename the release object. Only to rename the album object.

Simon (Shepard)

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-experts mailing list
Musicbrainz-experts@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-experts

[keschte]

after reviewing the objectmodel graph again, i think i was misunderstanding the request too. Since the object named "ReleaseArtist" is used in two different cases (ReleaseArtist as well as TrackArtist) i now understand much better why you are not happy with the current terminology. In any case, i like CreditedArtist much better than AttributedArtist.

 

my proposal to use "ReleaseGroup" still stands, even if we do not introduce different types of grouping objects. (i see no reason why not, better to do it right the first time, introduce the ones we'll need, or at least make it easily extendeable like the relationships)

 

--keschte
 

PS. Cluster doesn't feel like an adequate term for me, and it is correct that it didn't work out for Picard. i've tried to find references to the dicussion about clusters, the best i was able to come up with was a thread in january 2006.

http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2006-January/010598.html

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-experts mailing list
Musicbrainz-experts@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-experts

[DonRedman]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:08:23 +0200, Stefan Kestenholz wrote:

> In any case, i like CreditedArtist much better than AttributedArtist.

Agreed.

> my proposal to use "ReleaseGroup" still stands, even if we do not  
> introduce
> different types of grouping objects. (i see no reason why not, better to  
> do
> it right the first time, introduce the ones we'll need, or at least make  
> it easily extendeable like the relationships)

I do not like ReleaseGroup. This entity is not about releases, so it  
should not contain that term. Otherwise the Composition could also be  
called a TrackGroupGroupGroupGroup. :-) Something which states what it is  
--  not what it groups --  would be preferable.

Looking at FRBR maybe the term "Work" would be appropriate. But in fact,  
when I look at FRBR and keep the problems we recently had about what makes  
a release (current terminology), then I cannot help but feel that the  
vertical bamboo is flawed. The relations between release, release event  
and medium are strange. We noticed that on the summit but had more urgent  
things to discuss.

Maybe FRBR can help to sort this mess out? (CC to Lars Aronsson in this  
respect).

   DonRedman

--
Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiDocs,
the MusicBrainz documentation system.
Go to http://musicbrainz.org/doc/<SomeTerm>
(you might need to transform the term to singular)

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-experts mailing list
Musicbrainz-experts@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-experts

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2006/7/13, Don Redman <donredman@...>:
> Looking at FRBR maybe the term "Work" would be appropriate. But in fact,
> when I look at FRBR and keep the problems we recently had about what makes
> a release (current terminology), then I cannot help but feel that the
> vertical bamboo is flawed. The relations between release, release event
> and medium are strange. We noticed that on the summit but had more urgent
> things to discuss.

Work is often used for what NGS names Composition. I fear using this
word here would confuse people.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-experts mailing list
Musicbrainz-experts@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-experts

[Lars Aronsson]

Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:

> 2006/7/13, Don Redman <donredman@...>:
> > Looking at FRBR maybe the term "Work" would be appropriate. But in fact,
> > when I look at FRBR and keep the problems we recently had about what
> > makes
> > a release (current terminology), then I cannot help but feel that the
> > vertical bamboo is flawed. The relations between release, release event
> > and medium are strange. We noticed that on the summit but had more urgent
> > things to discuss.
>
> Work is often used for what NGS names Composition. I fear using this
> word here would confuse people.

In my mind, there is no end to the number of levels of "works"
based on each other.  A melody is composed, a songtext is written,
then the song text is translated to another language and the
melody is arranged for an orchestra setting, then the combination
is performed by a collaboration of a band and a guest artist, and
recorded by a recording studio, and released (or re-released 20
years later) by a record company (which can be diffferent from the
recording company, at least in the case of a re-realease).

The computer science way (this is not based on FRBR) to deal with
such complexities is to build a data structure for a generic tree
node, with which arbitrarily large trees can be constructed.  
Like LEGO blocks. So don't build "composer" or "work" or "release"
into the data model.  Make them flexible attributes to a generic
tree node.  And keep this flexibility all the way through the web
interface.  The latter is probably the biggest challenge.

 class work {
   title;
   date;              # when it was made
   kind;              # kind of work, e.g. "text translation"
   creators;          # list of pointers to "artists"
   based_on;          # list of pointers to other works;
 }

For the discussion of a future MB data model, this would *reduce*
the number of database tables, in that the album (release) table
can be merged with the track table.  The album/release would be
"based_on" a number of tracks, each having their own tree node.
A "boxed set" would likewise be a node being "based_on" a list of
discs.

These are just some lose thoughts, and not at all ready for
implementation.


--
  Lars Aronsson (lars@...)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-experts mailing list
Musicbrainz-experts@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-experts

[Jan van Thiel-2]

On 7/12/06, Stefan Kestenholz <keschte@...> wrote:
> my proposal to use "ReleaseGroup" still stands, even if we do not introduce
> different types of grouping objects. (i see no reason why not, better to do
> it right the first time, introduce the ones we'll need, or at least make it
> easily extendeable like the relationships)

Maybe something with the word 'Grouping' in it? ReleaseGrouping?

--
Jan van Thiel (zout)

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-experts mailing list
Musicbrainz-experts@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-experts

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2006/7/24, Jan van Thiel <zout@...>:
> On 7/12/06, Stefan Kestenholz <keschte@...> wrote:
> > my proposal to use "ReleaseGroup" still stands, even if we do not introduce
> > different types of grouping objects. (i see no reason why not, better to do
> > it right the first time, introduce the ones we'll need, or at least make it
> > easily extendeable like the relationships)
>
> Maybe something with the word 'Grouping' in it? ReleaseGrouping?

I was about to suggest Album :-D

Maybe we will keep it, after all...

--
Frederic Da Vitoria

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-experts mailing list
Musicbrainz-experts@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-experts