Discussions on Musical Contribution Documentation
Start a New Discussion
-
-
Hello everyone!
Just taking a look at this definition, it seems a bit wrong to me: what if you want to attach to several track/album, etc., the same contribution? If I composed a particular song, I want all performance/recordings of this song attached to my particular contribution?
This seems to go back to the workflow stuff defined in the music ontology (http://musicontology.com/imgs/mo-workflow.jpg) - you can attach agents (performers, composers, conductors, whatever) to every event in the music production workflow (composition(/arrangement)/performance/recording)
Best,
Yves-
Hi, Yves! We do plan to add contributions to tracks as well as to albums. However, specifically for compositions, we have a Composition type that would handle that; you would have composed an instance of a Composition, and various Musical Tracks would be recordings of that composition.
Performance contributions (such as conductors) would then be a little easier to track; sometimes, the same recording ends up as multiple tracks (alternate versions on box sets, e.g., but that’s a relatively rare case and I think it’s not too much trouble to capture the performance contributions separately for those.
-
Hi Crism!
Just a quick comment re. "the same recording ends up as multiple tracks" - well, that happens a lot! (for example singles/albums, which often have at least one track in common).
Also I think you should capture the notion of Performance, between a Composition and a Track, exactly for this sort of reason?
Anyway, we have a mailing list for this sort of discussion - it would be great if you could join us!
http://groups.google.com/group/music-ontology-specification-group
So far, the data model that raised from discussions there is something like:
Composition (---> Arrangement) --> Performance --> Recording ---> Track, record, etc.
(btw, have you heard about the linking open data project? there is a big music-related part in it, and we already interlinked quite a few datasets - Jamendo, Musibrainz, Magnatune, DBPedia, John Peel sessions, etc. etc.)
Cheers!
y -
Yves,
By multiple tracks I meant substantially different audio artifacts. If the single is the same as the album track, then it should be the exact same object in Freebase. If, however, the single contains a shortened version, it should be a different track.
We’re not trying to replace MusicBrainz, so I am not sure that capturing recording sessions (i.e., performances) is necessarily the right thing. MusicBrainz’ next-generation schema should be capturing that level of detail; we will have to see if our community demands it from us as well. (I’ll put you down for one vote yea. (-:)
We have Composition, Arrangement, and Musical Track, flattening the intervening layers. We could also have relationships between tracks as needed for alternate takes, radio edits, etc. (analogous to MusicBrainz’ “advanced relationships”). Do you think that would suffice?
Do you have a link to the “linking open data project”?
-
Oh yes, i completely forget, sorry about that:
http://linkeddata.org/
You can check the mailing list for up-to-date information about interlinked datasets, and this page for a concrete explanation of what we do and why we do it:
http://sites.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/bizer/pub/LinkedDataTutorial/
I know Chris Bizer has been in touch with some freebase people, I don't know who, though.
-
