Talk:Mash-up Relationship Type
This relationship doesn't allow [release-track] or [track-release] EntityPairs. Those could conceivably be useful in a very few situations: however, those situations are so rare that adding these possibilities would just make things confusing. You can still represent a track which is a MashUp of all the tracks on a release, or a release which is a MashUp of many other tracks, using multiple [track-track] relationships.
It has been suggested that we should move away from the PrimaryArtist field altogether, and give all credits as advanced relationships. There are currently (2005-08-12) advanced relationships equivalents for every current use of PrimaryArtist, except MashUp. So if we ever did deprecate PrimaryArtist, we'd either need to create a new relationship type for "masher-upper", or use the Remixer Relationship Type.
- I disagree. The proposed Remix Relationship Class does not have sub-types to the RemixerRelationshipType on purpose. Since is is so difficult to tell RemixMeansDifferentThings apart, and a MashUp could even be considered a special kind of remix, I think it is perfectly OK to call the person doing a MashUp a remixer. I thought this was even consensus. --DonRedman
- You're right - so right, that I modified the style section above to reflect that. Is that correct, or am I jumping the gun? --MatthewExon
