ruaok: I think "fetch all ISRCs for given CD" is /ws/1/release/{releaseid}?inc=tracks+isrcs ?
2009-04-22 11229, 2009
ruaok
yes
2009-04-22 11237, 2009
pbryan
Wow, on the same page.
2009-04-22 11244, 2009
ruaok
just like the link I just posted. :)
2009-04-22 11252, 2009
pbryan
Exactly.
2009-04-22 11236, 2009
pbryan
So, I agree that would be useful.
2009-04-22 11245, 2009
ruaok
k. thanks.
2009-04-22 11246, 2009
xlotlu
so the ISRC would be the long wished-for unique id for a recording
2009-04-22 11254, 2009
navap
nikki: The bug I "found" was essentially the same thing you said about it only working for open edits.
2009-04-22 11203, 2009
ruaok
xlotlu: no, thats the track MBID.
2009-04-22 11220, 2009
ruaok
one should not really use ISRCs.
2009-04-22 11229, 2009
ruaok
they are somewhat unreliable, I hear.
2009-04-22 11240, 2009
ruaok
so for a stable id, always use MBIDs.
2009-04-22 11249, 2009
nikki
track mbids aren't ids for *recordings* though
2009-04-22 11251, 2009
ruaok
ISRCs should be used for looking up MBIDs.
2009-04-22 11254, 2009
pbryan
xlotlu: I think the answer to your question is yes.
2009-04-22 11201, 2009
ruaok
nikki: not yet. :)
2009-04-22 11212, 2009
pbryan
I'm not sure why ruaok said no.
2009-04-22 11215, 2009
xlotlu
ruaok: the exact same recording will have different MBIDs on different releases. but up-upstream it will have one unique ISRC
2009-04-22 11229, 2009
ruaok
OIC.
2009-04-22 11242, 2009
ruaok
yes. however, sometimes tracks get passed from one label to another.
2009-04-22 11256, 2009
ruaok
or released in different countries. and get different ISRCs.
2009-04-22 11202, 2009
ruaok
see the link I just posed.
2009-04-22 11213, 2009
ruaok
one track has US and GB ISRCs.
2009-04-22 11224, 2009
ruaok
so, its not a unique is in they way you're hoping.
2009-04-22 11231, 2009
ruaok
our track ids wile be post NGS.
2009-04-22 11237, 2009
ruaok
that make sense?
2009-04-22 11250, 2009
pbryan
Right.
2009-04-22 11252, 2009
pbryan
Okay.
2009-04-22 11259, 2009
xlotlu
but PUID is (rather) unique in the sense i'm hoping :)
2009-04-22 11201, 2009
pbryan
Did session get into NGS?
2009-04-22 11210, 2009
ruaok
xlotlu: alas no.
2009-04-22 11215, 2009
pbryan
xlotlu: definitely nt.
2009-04-22 11217, 2009
nikki
hmm...
2009-04-22 11218, 2009
ruaok
PUIDs are fuzzy at best.
2009-04-22 11241, 2009
ruaok
pbryan: session... remind me what sessions were?
2009-04-22 11252, 2009
xlotlu
hence "rather"
2009-04-22 11258, 2009
pbryan
Recording session.
2009-04-22 11215, 2009
navap
Whether in studio, or live.
2009-04-22 11216, 2009
ruaok
better ask luks that one.
2009-04-22 11224, 2009
ruaok
I'm still a little shaky on the track level things.
2009-04-22 11225, 2009
pbryan
Okay.
2009-04-22 11238, 2009
ruaok
that patch hasn't hit the ML yet.
2009-04-22 11226, 2009
nikki
I just remembered, amazon.cn list isrcs on their pages, but they always start with CN, so I guess they always get assigned new ones when they get released in china
2009-04-22 11239, 2009
ruaok
yep.
2009-04-22 11238, 2009
navap
Whats the deal with Amazon.cn? Everyone seems to ignore it.
2009-04-22 11239, 2009
navap
I know they don't support ASINs, is there anything else?
2009-04-22 11252, 2009
nikki
there's no webservice for it either afaik
2009-04-22 11215, 2009
ruaok
is it even amazon?
2009-04-22 11221, 2009
nikki
it's owned by them
2009-04-22 11259, 2009
nikki
they *do* have asins embedded in the pages, but they don't make any use of them that I can find, and they don't work on other amazon sites either
2009-04-22 11220, 2009
nikki
but the urls still use some other identifier thingy
looks like I managed the cooling in my apt. sweet.
2009-04-22 11214, 2009
pbryan
ruaok: What are you using for cooling?
2009-04-22 11226, 2009
ruaok
fans.
2009-04-22 11238, 2009
ruaok
placed in windows sucking cold air in.
2009-04-22 11245, 2009
ruaok
one intake and one exhaust fan.
2009-04-22 11202, 2009
pbryan
Ah, neat.
2009-04-22 11222, 2009
ruaok learned something from computers for once
2009-04-22 11226, 2009
Sargun joined the channel
2009-04-22 11251, 2009
Moult has quit
2009-04-22 11232, 2009
navap
"20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection: The Best of Various Artists: Millennium Sampler" The title has a subtitle, which then has a subtitle, which also has its own subtitle :/
2009-04-22 11240, 2009
Tim|Paperclip joined the channel
2009-04-22 11258, 2009
brianfreud
ruaok: pong :)
2009-04-22 11258, 2009
pbryan
Hey brianfreud.
2009-04-22 11207, 2009
brianfreud
navap: Amazon.cn was a different company; Amazon bought them a few years ago, but when they brought all the other AZN domains into one standard ASIN structure, for whatever reasons, they didn't do the same with .cn. I think, but am not sure, that it really is only AZN in name, but unlike the other AZNs, does not actually share the same distributors, etc.
2009-04-22 11210, 2009
brianfreud
hey pbryan :)
2009-04-22 11227, 2009
navap
hmm I see
2009-04-22 11229, 2009
ruaok
hey. of course it escapes me why I pinged you. :(
2009-04-22 11236, 2009
brianfreud
Thanks for pulling that RFC; I was just about to actually suggest it to you in pm for exactly those reasons, when I saw your note :)
2009-04-22 11245, 2009
nikki
brianfreud: well, the other sites were already using asins...
2009-04-22 11207, 2009
pbryan
I'm wondering if I can convince you to revert the edit to the example for the time being.
2009-04-22 11228, 2009
brianfreud
pbryan: problem is, noone at least seems to disagree with my statement that that no space structure breaks on some other numbering schemas
2009-04-22 11207, 2009
pbryan
brianfreud: I see that. I just don't think it's going to help. There are two issues in my mind...
2009-04-22 11212, 2009
brianfreud
Chris wrote that guideline to be massively expansive in its scope, but wrote the examples with solely the [0-9] scheme in mind
2009-04-22 11218, 2009
pbryan
1. The edit being made to the example without consensus.
2009-04-22 11228, 2009
pbryan
2. The issue of what makes sense for part numbers.
2009-04-22 11246, 2009
nikki
although I actually suspect the chinese site is kept separate because of chinese stuff being so controlled
2009-04-22 11251, 2009
pbryan
I think discussion of 2 is worthwhile, but I'm concerned that 1 will impede discussion.
2009-04-22 11204, 2009
Om joined the channel
2009-04-22 11246, 2009
brianfreud
pbryan: The edit to the example was made 4 or 5 months ago. The only person who even said anything about it was Chris B, who reverted it (and everything else I'd written there, including the table of more complex examples based on the guidelines) and then emailed me (pretty nastily, tbh)... but like 3 *months* after my edit.
2009-04-22 11207, 2009
pbryan
Hmm.
2009-04-22 11209, 2009
brianfreud
But nothing in anything I wrote there had anything to do with changing anything at all in the guideline itself.
2009-04-22 11207, 2009
brianfreud
Now, I agreed with him, in that my wording in describing that table of complex case examples was too restrictive, and I edited the language when I undid his revert.
2009-04-22 11229, 2009
rexroom joined the channel
2009-04-22 11235, 2009
pbryan
I think if your change might not have been accepted if it had been published to the list for review prior to changing the wiki page.
2009-04-22 11235, 2009
brianfreud
But I think he's being far too posessive over the guideline; an example is an example, and is not a guideline in of itself.
2009-04-22 11257, 2009
pbryan
On that point, I think at best, it's a split view.
2009-04-22 11257, 2009
brianfreud
If he wanted it to specifically be "1-3", that should be in the guideline's text, not left to be assumed from a single example.
2009-04-22 11225, 2009
pbryan
4 people expressed opinions on whether example constitutes part of the guideline. 50-50 split.
2009-04-22 11230, 2009
brianfreud
My change to the example was perfectly allowed by the guideline's text
2009-04-22 11252, 2009
pbryan
So would a reversion be allowed by that logic.
2009-04-22 11258, 2009
navap thinks it's quite like the legal system. There are laws (our guidelines) and then judges who interpret the law and create precedence (examples) that then are followed. Changing the example may not change the guideline, but it certainly changes the precedence, which means that what might have been right before is now wrong and vice versa.
2009-04-22 11217, 2009
navap
The "Guideline" was never changed, but all the same, it is a big change.
2009-04-22 11231, 2009
brianfreud
Yet, everyone who's commented on it also agrees that yes, that particular no space structure indeed does break on other numbering schemes.
2009-04-22 11239, 2009
brianfreud
So as I see it, we have 3 choices:
2009-04-22 11254, 2009
brianfreud
1) Let them break. Force "Parts 1-1-1-3", just to get "Parts 1-3"
2009-04-22 11217, 2009
nikki
brianfreud: where do we use "parts 1-1-1-3"?
2009-04-22 11222, 2009
brianfreud
2) Make the spaces universal, so "Parts 1-1 - 1-3" and "Parts 1 - 3"
