History:Prefer Specific Relationship Types Proposal

This proposal has now passed, see Advanced Relationship Style, however, two lines depend on other changes, those have been left here until the relevant changes happen.

RFC-251

When RFC-251 is implemented, change:

• Engineer: prefer Audio Engineer, Editor, Mastering Engineer, Mix Engineer, Recording Engineer, Sound Engineer and/or Programmer. If the Engineer type is either Balance Engineer or Tonmeister, the generic Engineer type should be used, and not one of the more specific Engineer types.

to

• Engineer: prefer selecting the correct information from the Engineer tree.
• Engineer Position: prefer selecting the correct information from the Engineer tree.

and on Engineer_Relationship_Type, change:

• In many cases, the Audio Engineer, Editor, Mastering Engineer, Mix Engineer, Recording Engineer, Sound Engineer and/or Programmer relationship types should be used instead. If the Engineer relationship type is either Balance Engineer or Tonmeister, the generic Engineer relationship type should be used, and not one of the more specific Engineer relationship types. For details, see the Prefer Specific Relationship Types guideline.

to

• Be as specific as possible and specify the type of engineering that was performed, but only if you have a source or if you can deduce this information. For details, see the Prefer Specific Relationship Types guideline.

and to Engineer_Position_Relationship_Type, add:

• Be as specific as possible and specify the type of engineering position that was held, but only if you have a source or if you can deduce this information. For details, see the Prefer Specific Relationship Types guideline.