ocharles: because many releases have these groupings, and I want to capture that data in the database. I'm not sure what more "why" you are looking for.
2012-01-13 01356, 2012
reosarevok tries to remember what other single-sided LPs he has
ocharles: the use cases are all in the examples in my wiki page.
2012-01-13 01347, 2012
reosarevok
(that was the other I had)
2012-01-13 01333, 2012
ocharles
no, those are examples of things you want to group, I still haven't been entirely convinced why you want them, and why it's not something that a work hierarchy/set of works is sufficient
2012-01-13 01338, 2012
warp
hawke_1: "if you consider DVD titles to be equivalent to sides." <-- I was just saying that DVDs can have actual sides, so titles are not sides. they are just titles.
2012-01-13 01344, 2012
nikki
I'm sure classical people can give you plenty of examples where grouping would come in handy on tracklists instead of "Foo: Bar: II. Blah: "WTF", Part I: I Don't Get This" or whatever it is they do now to stringify it :P
2012-01-13 01306, 2012
ocharles
because examples 1, 3, 4 are all captured by works
2012-01-13 01317, 2012
nikki
ocharles: but works aren't tracklists...
2012-01-13 01330, 2012
warp
ocharles: because some of the things I want to group are not works.
2012-01-13 01333, 2012
ocharles
I know. which is why I haven't understand why this needs to be on tracklists :)
2012-01-13 01349, 2012
nikki
because right now the tracklists are ugly if you try and enter the data into them
2012-01-13 01349, 2012
warp
ocharles: some of them are, and in those cases I would link the group as being a release of a work.
2012-01-13 01354, 2012
hawke_1
warp: They divide tracks into groups due to technical aspects of the medium, just as sides do. So using the same system to implement them makes sense.
2012-01-13 01304, 2012
ocharles
nikki: but we can make use of works to solve that
2012-01-13 01304, 2012
warp
hawke_1: oh yes, certainly.
2012-01-13 01325, 2012
ocharles
I'm trying to determine why this is genuinily distinct data
2012-01-13 01344, 2012
warp
ocharles: well, take the first example for the prodigy.
2012-01-13 01305, 2012
nikki
ocharles: but we don't have a way to give a work a title that's only used on the release
2012-01-13 01307, 2012
warp
ocharles: to me that is merely a title given to a group of three tracks.
2012-01-13 01321, 2012
warp
ocharles: that's hardly enough to call "the narcotic suite" a work
2012-01-13 01359, 2012
ocharles
I would just simply disagree there, and I do feel they form a work
2012-01-13 01312, 2012
warp
ocharles: but just prefixing each of the tracks with "The Narcotic Suite: " is also incorrect, that is not part of the track title.
2012-01-13 01322, 2012
hawke_1
I think it could be argued that a named set is exactly one of the things that a work is.
2012-01-13 01324, 2012
bitmap joined the channel
2012-01-13 01356, 2012
warp
ocharles: is a group of [song / silence / hidden song] a work?
2012-01-13 01311, 2012
ocharles
no, but i don't feel it forms any type of conceptual entity either
2012-01-13 01315, 2012
nikki
are chapters of books works?
2012-01-13 01322, 2012
ocharles
I consider it to be [work] [hidden song]
2012-01-13 01326, 2012
ocharles
nikki: sure, why not?
2012-01-13 01340, 2012
ocharles
warp: those are 2 works, that just happen to appear on the same part of my media
nikki: if works have to be musical then, chapters/books/any of that doesn't belong in works at all
2012-01-13 01335, 2012
warp
ocharles: the conceptual entity I need for those two works (and three recordings IMO) is the audio file or cd track. the entity which has an audio fingerprint.
2012-01-13 01340, 2012
ocharles
I would say that reading outloud a chapter of a book or a poem can certainly constitute as performing it
2012-01-13 01353, 2012
ocharles
warp: which you already have, a recording
2012-01-13 01340, 2012
warp
ocharles: imo [song / silence / hidden song] are three seperate recordings
2012-01-13 01309, 2012
warp
ocharles: I don't believe in this 1:1 mapping of recording to audio file / cd track.
2012-01-13 01312, 2012
hawke_1
warp: I’d even say two, unless it’s silence-as-art.
2012-01-13 01355, 2012
ocharles
warp: ok, I don't mind that, but again, what's the need for a separate entity?
2012-01-13 01308, 2012
ocharles
if you want them separate, we just need non-integer track numbers and have x.1 and x.2
ocharles: if we split up the recordings, we need some other entity to represent the recordings as they exist together in an audio file or on a cd track.
2012-01-13 01341, 2012
ocharles
why though? you just said you don't want a mapping to cds/mp3s
2012-01-13 01353, 2012
reosarevok
But that's what the users want :p
2012-01-13 01354, 2012
warp
ocharles: I don't want a mapping of _recordings_ to cds/mp3s.
2012-01-13 01301, 2012
hawke_1
ocharles: because people still want to use mb for ripping and tagging
2012-01-13 01303, 2012
reosarevok
Being able to have both levels
2012-01-13 01306, 2012
reosarevok
For different uses
2012-01-13 01307, 2012
warp
ocharles: I do want a mapping of some kind to cds/mp3s/fingerprints.
2012-01-13 01319, 2012
reosarevok
Just not it to be the *only* mapping
2012-01-13 01329, 2012
ocharles
so why can't we have this with work relationships that are time indexed?
2012-01-13 01315, 2012
ocharles
it will need the ability to reference a work via a different name, "work name credits", but we already have that problem with artists
2012-01-13 01321, 2012
warp
ocharles: how can a work group several recordings together to form an entity to which a fingerprint can be linked?
warp: other way round. A recording has the finger print, and has 9 works, each of which are time indexed
2012-01-13 01357, 2012
reosarevok
s/already/at least/
2012-01-13 01316, 2012
warp
ocharles: then you still have duplicate recordings which shouldn't be duplicate.
2012-01-13 01321, 2012
nikki
simon just showed me an example of a cd where the tracklist says "side a" followed by 7 tracks and "side b" followed by 5 tracks
2012-01-13 01324, 2012
nikki
those aren't works either
2012-01-13 01336, 2012
nikki
that's just someone wishing they still had vinyl :P
2012-01-13 01301, 2012
ocharles
nikki: but it is solved by non-integer track indexes, A1 A2 A3 and B1 B2
2012-01-13 01307, 2012
nikki
no
2012-01-13 01309, 2012
warp
ocharles: no
2012-01-13 01312, 2012
nikki
the tracks are numbed 1 to 12
2012-01-13 01313, 2012
hawke_1
no.
2012-01-13 01324, 2012
warp
ocharles: it's _name_ given to a group of tracks.
2012-01-13 01324, 2012
ocharles
the A1 A2 B3 B4
2012-01-13 01341, 2012
nikki
but that's not right :/
2012-01-13 01345, 2012
nikki
they're not real sides
2012-01-13 01349, 2012
hawke_1
especially if we interpret A = first physical side
2012-01-13 01351, 2012
nikki
it's just a name
2012-01-13 01301, 2012
ocharles
so what use is it then?
2012-01-13 01317, 2012
ocharles
what are we trying to do with this name?
2012-01-13 01326, 2012
warp
capture it
2012-01-13 01334, 2012
nikki
we're trying to represent what's on the release without inventing stuff :P
2012-01-13 01339, 2012
warp
so that I may know it when I play the music :)
2012-01-13 01339, 2012
ocharles
I understand there is a group, I'm just intentionally playing devils advocate because introducing a new namespaces of MBIDs should be very well considered
2012-01-13 01307, 2012
ocharles
warp: if you think if it as something that stands alone, then again, I would argue that sounds like you think of it as a work
2012-01-13 01325, 2012
ocharles
i'm not sure why you'd only want to listen to side a and not side b though :)
2012-01-13 01336, 2012
nikki
it's the same as why do we have artist credits?
2012-01-13 01341, 2012
warp
ocharles: so, we have two different problems.
2012-01-13 01349, 2012
nikki
because we want to capture how it's actually credited
2012-01-13 01301, 2012
warp
ocharles: groups of tracks which are works could possibly be represented with just works.
2012-01-13 01302, 2012
ocharles
nikki: artist credits are fine, they aren't addressable
2012-01-13 01320, 2012
warp
ocharles: we perhaps don't need anything new there.
2012-01-13 01304, 2012
ocharles
You could get this by either having: non-integer track indexes, or having a "group" field for tracks
2012-01-13 01307, 2012
hawke_1
IMO it could be done with recordings alone.
2012-01-13 01321, 2012
hawke_1
and just more complex/interesting linking of recordings/tracks
2012-01-13 01334, 2012
warp
ocharles: ok, a group field for tracks is an interisting new suggestion.
2012-01-13 01343, 2012
hawke_1
(well, plus non-addressable grouping)
2012-01-13 01340, 2012
warp
ocharles: so you'd just add a group_id column to track? what would the group table look like?
2012-01-13 01351, 2012
ocharles
warp: no ID, just text
2012-01-13 01317, 2012
warp
ocharles: what if the track is part of multiple groups?
2012-01-13 01336, 2012
ocharles
and voila, we now have something that wasn't in your original plan :)
2012-01-13 01347, 2012
warp
ocharles: yes it is :)
2012-01-13 01314, 2012
ocharles
where?
2012-01-13 01331, 2012
luks
test is broken atm?
2012-01-13 01333, 2012
luks
DBD::Pg::st execute failed: no connection to the server
2012-01-13 01343, 2012
ocharles
multiple groups would imply overlapping track groups, which I don't see in your examples
2012-01-13 01351, 2012
ocharles
luks: i'll kick it
2012-01-13 01318, 2012
warp
ocharles: the ring example needs it to represent "Scene 1", "Scene 2", etc.. within "Act 1"
2012-01-13 01337, 2012
ocharles
which sounds to me like the solved problem of works... but I think we're just going round in circles there
2012-01-13 01339, 2012
hawke_1
And also, the examples mention sides which would often overlap with other groups
2012-01-13 01307, 2012
warp
ocharles: ah, right.
2012-01-13 01309, 2012
ocharles
luks: done. I forgot to restart the server after rebuilding postgres
2012-01-13 01321, 2012
warp
ocharles: you're saying that I'm trying to solve two problems with a single complicated solution.
2012-01-13 01336, 2012
ocharles
mmm, I'm not sure I'm saying that
2012-01-13 01341, 2012
ocharles
I'm saying you're introducing data duplication
2012-01-13 01349, 2012
warp
ocharles: whereas if we solve one of them with works instead, we can solve the other with for example merely a group column on the track table.
that could definitely use track grouping into songs or what we normally think of as recordings
2012-01-13 01307, 2012
warp
ocharles: to me it's just as much duplication as the duplication inherent in track title <-> recording title <-> work title.
2012-01-13 01314, 2012
hawke_1
i.e. track 5–12 should be one MB-recording
2012-01-13 01346, 2012
ocharles
warp: that shouldn't be reason for you to design more duplication in though
2012-01-13 01355, 2012
warp
ocharles: if "The Narcotic Suite" is a work, the track grouping with "The Narcotic Suite" name is a work as it appears on a release (perhaps the title of the group is translated on the release, etc..)
2012-01-13 01317, 2012
warp
ocharles: so, work credits! :)
2012-01-13 01351, 2012
ocharles
I'm going to the pub in 5 minutes
2012-01-13 01300, 2012
ocharles
:P
2012-01-13 01313, 2012
warp
np
2012-01-13 01320, 2012
warp
thanks for playing devil's advocate
2012-01-13 01330, 2012
ocharles
:)
2012-01-13 01334, 2012
warp
have a good weekend sir!
2012-01-13 01337, 2012
ocharles
you too!
2012-01-13 01314, 2012
warp
I think the gf + kids are going somewhere tomorrow. I may pop in for a bit work. not sure yet.
2012-01-13 01358, 2012
hawke_1
warp: It’d be neat, but infeasible, to define/upgrade the ripper-interaction protocol to tell rippers how to handle the CD.
2012-01-13 01310, 2012
reosarevok
hawke_1, make a MB ripper :p
2012-01-13 01323, 2012
hawke_1
e.g. 'rip tracks 1-4 as one file, 5-12 as another'
2012-01-13 01330, 2012
warp
hawke_1: we don't care about such practicalities!
2012-01-13 01354, 2012
warp
first we get the data model right. then we figure out how to implement it in the tagger without breaking anything.
2012-01-13 01333, 2012
hawke_1
What’s your take on that particular release? How should it be modelled?
2012-01-13 01336, 2012
warp
I'm not sure. that's sort of the other way around
2012-01-13 01334, 2012
warp
what are the track divisions trying to indicate, is there more information about each of the parts we could capture if we had the booklet?
2012-01-13 01307, 2012
hawke_1
I’m guessing not; I have two guesses as to the reason for the track separation
2012-01-13 01316, 2012
hawke_1
1: to make it a giant pain to copy/rip
2012-01-13 01301, 2012
hawke_1
2: because it accompanies a textbook, so they want the listener to be able to seek to particular segments of the music, as the text describes some aspect of it
2012-01-13 01305, 2012
warp
it seems to be a teaching aid, so the intent may be to make it easier to give instructions (in the textbook) to jump to specific parts
