User:CallerNo6/sandbox3: Difference between revisions
(New page: =Playing Around With Work Hierarchy= It seems like before we go any further with the CSG or with specific Works-related style discussions, it'd be nice to have an idea of what we can/shou...) |
(first super-rough draft) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
It seems like before we go any further with the CSG or with specific Works-related style discussions, it'd be nice to have an idea of what we can/should ''do'' with Works. Or "thingies". |
It seems like before we go any further with the CSG or with specific Works-related style discussions, it'd be nice to have an idea of what we can/should ''do'' with Works. Or "thingies". |
||
[[Image:Works.png|thumb|What did I just do?]] |
[[Image:Works.png|thumb|What did I just do?]] |
||
==Overview== |
|||
In my opinion, we need two attributes to describe a "work-thingy" -- "form" and "type". |
|||
===Form=== |
|||
What we now call "Work Type" is really a "Work (Thingy) Form". More on forms at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_forms wikipedia]. This would also include some non-musical forms, such as "poem" and "lecture" maybe? |
|||
===Type=== |
|||
A "Work (Thingy) Type" would be, in my scheme, a description of how the "thingy" fits into a hierarchy. |
|||
*Catalog |
|||
*Opus (when used as a "works container"... I realize there's some overlap) |
|||
*Collection |
|||
*Super-Work |
|||
*'''Work''' i.e. "composition" |
|||
*Work-part |
|||
*Arrangement/Orchestration (if it passes a test for "work-ness") |
|||
*Version/Variation (if it passes a test for "work-ness") |
|||
*Mashup |
|||
*Re-Mix (if it passes a test for "work-ness") |
|||
==Strategy== |
|||
"Work (Thingy) Types" would be linked using (naturally) work-work Relationships (of course). Most types wouldn't display by default on an artists "work list". |
|||
My goal would be to do all of this using attributes, relationships and a slight tweak to how work-lists are displayed. |
|||
Revision as of 17:20, 2 September 2011
Playing Around With Work Hierarchy
It seems like before we go any further with the CSG or with specific Works-related style discussions, it'd be nice to have an idea of what we can/should do with Works. Or "thingies".
Overview
In my opinion, we need two attributes to describe a "work-thingy" -- "form" and "type".
Form
What we now call "Work Type" is really a "Work (Thingy) Form". More on forms at wikipedia. This would also include some non-musical forms, such as "poem" and "lecture" maybe?
Type
A "Work (Thingy) Type" would be, in my scheme, a description of how the "thingy" fits into a hierarchy.
- Catalog
- Opus (when used as a "works container"... I realize there's some overlap)
- Collection
- Super-Work
- Work i.e. "composition"
- Work-part
- Arrangement/Orchestration (if it passes a test for "work-ness")
- Version/Variation (if it passes a test for "work-ness")
- Mashup
- Re-Mix (if it passes a test for "work-ness")
Strategy
"Work (Thingy) Types" would be linked using (naturally) work-work Relationships (of course). Most types wouldn't display by default on an artists "work list".
My goal would be to do all of this using attributes, relationships and a slight tweak to how work-lists are displayed.
