Date and place of recording tracks

Getting finer grained than track seems like overkill. I'd be happy with Place and Date on Track. How about on Album too? Most albums are recorded in the same place, and most live albums are recorded at the same time.

I think date and location are good properties for tracks in general; I don't have a strong opinion about the depth of the model, though.

This sounds like fun data to me. Good cocktail party discussion. How about using "Place of recording" because this might differ from where it was engineered or mastered. The location property could be added as a CVT with date and permitted to hold multiple entries for instances when multiple takes are included on a single track (an option that probably won't be used that much).

I have modeled these on sandbox. I hedged; the two properties do not use a CVT and have singular names, but they are non-unique. If there is significant user confusion or demand for more complex models, we can always promote the existing values to use a CVT.

This works for me.

How abstract is "track" now?  That is, how often will there be tracks in freebase that are copies of a specific recording session?

A Musical Track should be a bit of recorded sound expicitly instantiated somewhere, whether it’s in a file, on a disc, or on a tape. Some tracks will come from single recording sessions, others will be mixed from multiple sessions, and sample-based tracks might not ever have been really “recorded” at all, at least not by the credited artist.

I'm sorry.  I asked my question badly.  If you are attaching recording-session specific data to a track, would the track be the "definitive" version of that recording, or would there be other instances of tracks that represent that same recording?  In other words, would people be able to find the session data if there are many representations of the recording?

I understand now, Robert. That is kind of the crux of the question; we could be more pedantic and expicitly model masters and/or recording sessions which underlie tracks. That would be a more robust and thorough model, but it would also complicate actual use. Al’s opinion is that the track level is sufficient for now, and as he is more likely to use this than I am, I am inclined to go with that, as we can always garden out an implicit session from a track later on.