#musicbrainz

That's not the definition of a release in MB's data model.

Yes, conceptually, I get it.

actually, in WhatDefinesAUniqueRelease, depending on the exact tracklisting and times of the CDs in the box, it can or can not be a release per the MB definition

that was my point about Gap #1

So, the argument is, a disc, which otherwise has the same performance, from the same masters, mixed by the same engineers, with the same track listing, and maybe even same discIds, should be considered parts of different releases.

All it would take is one single CD in that 180 CD set to have even a minor tracklist variation from the earlier version, yet somehow that minor single track difference is the difference between whether we consider the box valid to exist or not, according to the WDAUR definition

s/a disc/discs/

pbryan: In a nutshell, yes.

In variant #1, it is a single CD. In variant #2, it is one of many CDs.

But less than I thought. :)

So, the criteria from your perspective is what constitutes the release as a whole

yes, if you walk down the list in WDAUR, technically, even a box that consists solely of previously released boxes does hit on each and every one of the criteria as a no.

If the release as a whole has the same content as another release, it deserves to be considered the same in MB.

But those criteria are designed for the cases where that one point is the decider. My sense is, it means something different when you have to use every single criteria there to get that same "no, they're the same"

yes

To make this work, properly, from a data model perspective, the release in MB needs to consider that it can include multiple discs.

The problem in MB is that a disc == release.

that's it exactly - the release *as a whole*. A single disc from within a box is not a release unto itself.

Take that away, and associate a discid with a range of tracks, and I agree.

I already do this in my collection.

10-CD releases show up as tracks 1-150 in my collection.

Okay, sold.

and I think that was what Lauri was getting at, when she brought in the transl(itera)tion AR

as those too, even more so, are identical - yet different in one important enough way that we list them separately.

If ultimately a release != disc, I'm with ya.

that's it exactly :)

That's not the semantics today, but I'm happy to use my imagination. :)

I've done the mental gyrations already.

This takes MB into the downloadable releases age nicely too.

here we go :)

it's the difference there between the "album" entity and the "release" entity... though I agree, that is a confusing distinction, until you suddenly get it :)

toc.tracoffset solves this?

pbryan: the release with track merging stuff is scheduled for may, afaik, changing the guidelines twice in such a short period of time would just confuse people

nikki: agreed, plus the amount of work to unmerge all those releases that do end up merged in the meantime :)

each medium of "cd" has its trackoffset relative to the release?

something like that

LP side A, LP side B

Cassette side A, side B

8-track layer 1, 2, 3, or 4, etc

Excellent.

nikki: makes sense; the more status qou prior to a major change the better.

Well, thanks again for edumufacating me. :)

though, really, it's no change to say "allow both"; we've done that for a very long time now.

"hobble along" until the data model changes.

It was when I saw editors who knew better flat out telling someone that he was wrong to enter his box using box set titles, that bugged me :)

Well, I did see the edit where this was set off.

happen to look at the others in the series, both the adds, and the notes that editor left for why he was renaming a dozen releases? :)

lol

when I see stupid things going on, I tend to look through open edits (and closer autos history too) :P

Okay, well, I'm persuaded that your RFC results in the least amount of short term collateral damage.

that was my hope :)

if we need something added to protect against smaller into larger merging, I'm not against it; I just don't think it's needed - the current wording doesn't seem to guide against that anyhow :)

Sure, but this will be less common, I expect.

well, I did throw it out while we were brainstorming, so I do understand where leivhe is coming from in worrying about it.

But I think if we simply go with "live and let live" to allow both, then the largest % of people is happy... and "but it's more cluttered!" honestly is never a good reason to not do something in my book :D

There will be plenty of duplication on ARs to clean up anyway.

Some duplicate releases won't be that bad, I presume.

yeah; to be honest, if someone's willing to AR at all, I'm happy.

If they have the single or the box or the original or the remaster or the Korean or the Japanese or the transliteration or whatever - if it makes them that much more likely to add ARs, I'm happy with it.

So as to not lose any of the work being invested.

Is that feasible?

well, I was the one to kill the only AR we've ever killed... and I can say, I think pretty certainly, anything and everything will always be done to avoid having to kill valid ARs

heh, the "but it's more cluttered!" doesn't work for mb anyway, we have so many slight variations on tracklists (bonus japanese track, bonus uk track, here we felt like rearranging the tracks for no good reason, special edition with ultra limited hidden track, etc)

exactly :)

some of the artists I've worked on were such a pain in the arse thanks to all the slight variants

SBD1a vs SBD1b vs AUD1 vs AUD2 vs AUD3 vs AUD4a vs AUD4b vs PRE-FM vs... lol

lol

there are just over 50 different distinct releases... then there's mainland china versions, hong kong/taiwan versions, japanese versions, pinyin versions, transliterated cantonese versions, transliterated korean versions, simplified chinese versions, traditional chinese versions...

hehe

translated japanese versions, translated english versions...

Well, given the AR track I'm on, I expect to be entering metadata until 2012.

So much for a short "get my collection metadata into MB and leave" approach.

I'd be happy just to finish getting my collection added... keep getting distracted with ARs and such :D

Exactly.

luckily they don't exist for every single release, but it's still complicated when you're trying to find info about something and there's only about 15 different bloody names

pbryan: I started that path a year&1/2 + nearly 4000 releases ago... :D

Wow.

And my collection is only 1/8 the size...

What am I complaining about?

hehe

man, I should so write a Naxos importer... wish we already had works, so I could actually do it

So, is there a world record number of edits by a single editor? :)

prob the guy who decided to add 100,000 empty labels to MB all in one day

lol

strive for 100k edits :)

lol

Okay.

I think he was somewhere around the B's when we stopped him

Wow.

rofl

Nice plot.

BrianFreud: let's revisit your schema when i can easily get to a printer

So, me adding the New York City phonebook for names of artists ain't a good idea then...

Yllona: not my schema - that's the NGS schema :)

okay, either way let's revisit when i can get to a printer :)

hmmm, I don't recall the last VA classical release I had where I had to add three whole composers

Johann Julius Sontag von Holt Sombach, Karl Leopold Rollig, and David August von Apell

on NGS, my point being: "We live, and let live, and look we keep our hands to ourselves"

well, I'd be happy to talk about it, but just wanted to be clear that schema's not something I had anything to do it - it's the result of all ruaok / luks / etc 's work at the last summit; we can talk about it, but I have no power (or desire) whatsoever to change it :)

*s/to do with

BrianFreud: see my point above :)

ruaok: yes, 'misty', as catcat said.

hey warp

hi

warp, was it you who was into WARP records?

BrianFreud: yes.

misty it is.

BrianFreud: what was your suggestion?

?

for a server name

oh... /me tries to remember

oh, Jem

from?

Jem and the Holograms

and warp had pointed out that she originally was to have been called Misty :D

but the misty we already have is different, right?

from pokemon, I think

yes

BrianFreud: sure.

BrianFreud: how old are you?

30

I was graduating high school when it started getting popular in middle school here

it came just after pogs were popular here, I think

lol, maybe it came earlier in Europe

i only actually played the original gameboy version though (released 1998 in the US, 1999 in europe)

haha, I remember pogs

my mum's sick of them, she's been emptying her attic and it's got all my old toys in it, and everywhere she looks she finds pogs or tazos or anything else like that

what was that show with the japanese monster movies and the kid heros in aluminum foil costumes?

BrianFreud: power rangers?

yep, that was it :) - for the kids I babysat, it was that, then pogs, then pokemon... and it never left pokemon, it seems

:)