User:CallerNo6/sandbox3
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".
Preface: Semantics
"Work" is a misleading term to me. It means, in most contexts, something like "composition". But a "work" as it exists in the database is really more like a "div" in HTML. It's a flexible, re-purpose-able, nestable entity. In short, it's a "thingy".
To confuse matters more, below I list "Work" as one of the possible attribute values of a "Work". That should be undertood as "a composition-level thingy".
Overview: Two Defining Attributes
In my opinion, a Work-Thingy would have two essential attributes -- "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 (which is sometimes used to mean a sort of "work container")
- Collection
- Super-Work
- Work i.e. "composition" or "opus"
- 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.
What is gained?
As I see it, there are two "camps" where "works" are concerned. One wants a sensible, uncomplicated list of compositions by a particular artist. The other wants to create Work Trees that illustrate lineage/genealogy as a complex set of relationships. Using "work (thingy) types", I'd hope to satisfy both camps.
