I can't bare to add relations to recording by embedding links in wiki markup..
2015-02-26 05725, 2015
reosarevok
(in general)
2015-02-26 05746, 2015
reosarevok
We'd love to do lyrics ourselves for example, but licensing is ridiculous
2015-02-26 05747, 2015
reosarevok
:)
2015-02-26 05708, 2015
reosarevok
So I suspect most lyrics stuff has enough problems remaining alive to care much about best practices and design
2015-02-26 05728, 2015
reosarevok
LordSputnik1: well, bookbrainz to cocktailbrainz is still a big one! :p
2015-02-26 05733, 2015
johtso
urgh.. licensing.. copyright.. the enemies of data preservation
2015-02-26 05756, 2015
reosarevok wants a chocolatebrainz
2015-02-26 05705, 2015
reosarevok
There's no decently done chocolate DB out there that I've seen :p
2015-02-26 05709, 2015
johtso
but is it a series of chocolates?
2015-02-26 05726, 2015
reosarevok
Well they're probably released
2015-02-26 05727, 2015
LordSputnik1
reosarevok: Well, that depends on your entities... you'd probably want a Glass, GlassType, Drink, Vendor, and then it's just a case of updating the schema
2015-02-26 05728, 2015
reosarevok
:)
2015-02-26 05734, 2015
johtso
it did come in a nice plastic box after all..
2015-02-26 05739, 2015
reosarevok
Well, arguably the same is true of MusicBrainz, LordSputnik1 ;) But designing separate schemas for stuff is hard :)
2015-02-26 05752, 2015
LordSputnik1
reosarevok: that depends on your entities, and how you go about storing data - if you move more of it into relationships, and focus on storing only an entity's properties on the entity itself, then changing from one Brainz to another is much easier
2015-02-26 05743, 2015
reosarevok
Oh, sure, that much is true - wikidata is much more flexible than MB
2015-02-26 05705, 2015
reosarevok
(by basically storing only a name on the entity and everything else as properties)
2015-02-26 05727, 2015
reosarevok
It still requires a lot of schema definition to make sense of the stuff, but not so much coding to make the schema work :)
2015-02-26 05751, 2015
LordSputnik1
Also, you could argue that by generalizing MB entities and storing them in a sharedBrainz, then you'd have a lot less entities to redefine between Brainzes
2015-02-26 05729, 2015
reosarevok
I mean, going full wikidata style is interesting in itself
2015-02-26 05745, 2015
reosarevok
They have just one entity "type", which can then be defined as a property, so basically is:artist
2015-02-26 05718, 2015
reosarevok
Our stuff has its benefits, but I'd be curious to see MB running on the WD model and see how it fit
2015-02-26 05755, 2015
reosarevok
Only without the deletionists :p
2015-02-26 05759, 2015
LordSputnik1
The code to only allow certain relationships for certain types would become more difficult, certainly
2015-02-26 05712, 2015
reosarevok
Well, to a degree, yes
2015-02-26 05726, 2015
reosarevok
You gain flexibility in some parts by making others more complex
2015-02-26 05736, 2015
LordSputnik1
We have that with BB already, due to our slightly different model of entities
2015-02-26 05741, 2015
reosarevok
I'm not saying we *should* work like that, just that it would be interesting :)
Of course, even with how we work now, that's still true
2015-02-26 05729, 2015
reosarevok
("orchestra married choir" is nonsensical, yet perfectly enterable in MB right now)
2015-02-26 05708, 2015
LordSputnik1
Yeah, that's where it might help to eventually have "Person" and "Group" general types, rather than "Artist"
2015-02-26 05741, 2015
LordSputnik1
we've talked about this in bookbrainz-devel a little (although sticking with Artist/Creator for now)
2015-02-26 05717, 2015
reosarevok
I mean, in BB "group" or "collective" is probably less likely to appear
2015-02-26 05729, 2015
reosarevok
(or well, less *common*, it will certainly appear)
2015-02-26 05743, 2015
reosarevok
(but if it's rare enough, trusting your users' common sense is less of a problem :p)
2015-02-26 05753, 2015
CallerNo6
I protest. The bible says 'Adam and Eve', not 'Adam Mansell Orchestra and the Stevens Street Worship Choir'
2015-02-26 05707, 2015
LordSputnik1
:D
2015-02-26 05711, 2015
johtso
it's pretty confusing add relationships that don't give any sense of direction.. like "sibling"
2015-02-26 05725, 2015
reosarevok
Well, in that case the direction just doesn't matter :)
2015-02-26 05736, 2015
reosarevok
It's just there because there must be one, with the way MB works right now
2015-02-26 05742, 2015
johtso
well it does if you want to avoid relationship webs
2015-02-26 05747, 2015
johtso
or whatever the term was
2015-02-26 05755, 2015
reosarevok
Oh
2015-02-26 05706, 2015
reosarevok
I think for siblings, most people decided that "shrug"
2015-02-26 05731, 2015
johtso
I thought the standard was to relate all siblings to oldest sibling
2015-02-26 05740, 2015
reosarevok
Well, yes, that's the official guideline
2015-02-26 05748, 2015
reosarevok
But I think barely nobody has been following it much
2015-02-26 05703, 2015
johtso
ah, there's the guidelines.. and then there's reality :)
2015-02-26 05711, 2015
reosarevok
In any case, even if you do it that way, it doesn't matter whether the oldest is entity0 or entity1 in the DB
2015-02-26 05723, 2015
reosarevok
That just says "do not add a sibling rel between the other ones"
2015-02-26 05726, 2015
johtso
oh really?
2015-02-26 05729, 2015
johtso
that's good to know
2015-02-26 05755, 2015
reosarevok
I mean, dunno if it might to some purist, but given the lack of following for the loosest interpretation :p
2015-02-26 05701, 2015
johtso
right, the releationship entity doesn't contain any sense of direction so it doesn't matter who's 0 and who's 1
2015-02-26 05710, 2015
reosarevok
Yup
2015-02-26 05719, 2015
LordSputnik1
:P I think it'd be possible to store all siblings in a single relationship in BookBrainz with a few small tweaks
2015-02-26 05734, 2015
reosarevok
I do have a ticket to kinda give up on sibling and make do-not-cluster be for other things (like remasters)
2015-02-26 05750, 2015
reosarevok
LordSputnik1: the goal is to be able to define rels better in MB too, using roles
2015-02-26 05706, 2015
LordSputnik1
What are roles?
2015-02-26 05717, 2015
LordSputnik1
(in this context)
2015-02-26 05743, 2015
reosarevok
(so "sibling" is "n siblings", "member" is "1 group, n members", "recording" is "1 recording, 1 place, n performers, 1 recording engineer, etc"))
2015-02-26 05754, 2015
reosarevok
(instead of all being A x B)
2015-02-26 05757, 2015
reosarevok
But it's a lot of work :)
2015-02-26 05704, 2015
reosarevok
So for now...
2015-02-26 05726, 2015
gnu_andrew joined the channel
2015-02-26 05743, 2015
reosarevok
Well, dunno if it's an official goal, anyway, but it's been talked about in the past a few times and the main objection was amount of effort but not actual opposition to the idea. At least in the core team
2015-02-26 05701, 2015
reosarevok
But yeah, pie in the sky at the moment I'd expect :) Who knows in the future though
i just got it when I tried to save updates to an album
2015-02-26 05705, 2015
Junior_ joined the channel
2015-02-26 05730, 2015
simukis_ joined the channel
2015-02-26 05704, 2015
simukis_ joined the channel
2015-02-26 05724, 2015
nikki joined the channel
2015-02-26 05700, 2015
chungy joined the channel
2015-02-26 05715, 2015
zas joined the channel
2015-02-26 05723, 2015
ruaok joined the channel
2015-02-26 05744, 2015
reosarevok joined the channel
2015-02-26 05745, 2015
reosarevok joined the channel
2015-02-26 05713, 2015
simukis_ joined the channel
2015-02-26 05700, 2015
hibiscuskazeneko joined the channel
2015-02-26 05739, 2015
shredpub joined the channel
2015-02-26 05755, 2015
DarkerAudit joined the channel
2015-02-26 05754, 2015
DarkestAudit joined the channel
2015-02-26 05726, 2015
DarkerAudit joined the channel
2015-02-26 05722, 2015
DarkestAudit joined the channel
2015-02-26 05754, 2015
sertansenturk joined the channel
2015-02-26 05719, 2015
ruaok joined the channel
2015-02-26 05730, 2015
achadwick joined the channel
2015-02-26 05720, 2015
KRS-Cuan joined the channel
2015-02-26 05756, 2015
Freso
"johtso | tools that consume musicbrainz data don't understand the concept of a series" - doesn't mean they can't be made to, so not really an excuse. MusicBrainz should not worry about how it's data can or cannot be used in other applications, as long as it is making its data available for use.
Freso: I mostly agree, and I'm a data purist, but I do sometimes feel that if we're restricting it so much that it makes it completely useless and very hard to make usable, it might be too much :) )
2015-02-26 05749, 2015
reosarevok
I mean, in that we need people to have some kind of reason to add stuff, or it won't get added at all
2015-02-26 05713, 2015
reosarevok
So I'm fine with not being too strict on grey areas (although still strict on things that are just wrong)
2015-02-26 05748, 2015
Freso
johtso: I deliberately make sibling relationship clusters. Since, 1) I don't always know the age of all siblings, 2) If I go to the non-oldest sibling, I can still get information on all siblings, without relying on fetching an "entire" different artist+relationships.
2015-02-26 05759, 2015
johtso
Freso: yeah.. the current implementation is definitely flawed in that respect
2015-02-26 05742, 2015
Freso done with backlog o/
2015-02-26 05758, 2015
johtso
is the optimum solution to have some kind of siblingship entity that the various artists are related to?
2015-02-26 05748, 2015
Freso
Isn't that basically what reosarevok talked about wrt "roles"?
2015-02-26 05735, 2015
johtso
ah, skipped over that *reads back through the discussion*
2015-02-26 05737, 2015
reosarevok
Yeah, that's the optimal choice :) Just not trivial, so for now we do what we can :)
2015-02-26 05732, 2015
johtso
wow, that sounds pretty snazzy
2015-02-26 05753, 2015
nikki
I think pretty much everyone links siblings to all the other siblings, it's not the most ideal way to enter the data, but it's not like any of the currently possible options are great
2015-02-26 05758, 2015
johtso
As long as the data's there it can always be migrated :)
2015-02-26 05708, 2015
nikki
it's just that every time we tried to fix that damn guideline, someone complained :P
2015-02-26 05714, 2015
nikki
so people were like fine, whatever, we'll just continue not following it like we have been since forever *grumble*, or something
2015-02-26 05756, 2015
chirlu` joined the channel
2015-02-26 05714, 2015
chirlu`
The “siblingship entity” to which all the siblings should be related to is generally known as “parent”.
2015-02-26 05722, 2015
chirlu`
-to
2015-02-26 05726, 2015
nikki
people don't really like adding placeholder artists though, it feels like a hack
2015-02-26 05742, 2015
nikki
(and even if you disagree, that won't make people do it)
2015-02-26 05719, 2015
chirlu`
And introducing a new siblingship entity is better?
2015-02-26 05730, 2015
reosarevok
Not a new entity, no :)
2015-02-26 05706, 2015
reosarevok
The idea would be to allow relationships to have roles, so the sibling relationship wouldn't be A sibling B but "siblings: A and B and C and ..."
2015-02-26 05707, 2015
chirlu`
The “relationship that can have N participants” idea is broken, too.
2015-02-26 05717, 2015
reosarevok
Why? :)
2015-02-26 05702, 2015
chirlu`
For several reasons (and I have a tab with MBS-1159 open since a while back to comment on it).
2015-02-26 05722, 2015
reosarevok
In any case, that only would suggest even more that what people do (link everyone) is the most reasonable choice
2015-02-26 05743, 2015
reosarevok
But I'd be curious to know about the issues, really, because relationship roles seem pretty sensible to me
