[LinkedBrainz] Release type handling

[za...@smiy.org]

Hi,

The mapping of the MBZ 'release types' seems to be a bit difficult,
since they are directly related to MBZ 'release groups' which are
mapped to mo:SignalGroup [1] instances. This class is on the
expression level. However, the mo:release_type [2] property currently
relates to mo:MusicalManifestation [3], i.e. to instances that are on
the manifestation level, e.g., mo:Release [4] instances. I'm currently
unsure whether we should switch the domain of mo:release_type to
mo:MusicalExpression [5], or whether I should create a mapping for
mo:Release instances that are related to their release types.
Currently, I would prefer the second one.

Cheers,

Bo

[1] http://musicontology.com/#term_SignalGroup
[2] http://musicontology.com/#term_release_type
[3] http://musicontology.com/#term_MusicalManifestation
[4] http://musicontology.com/#term_Release
[5] http://musicontology.com/#term_MusicalExpression

[Yves Raimond]

Hello!

> The mapping of the MBZ 'release types' seems to be a bit difficult, since
> they are directly related to MBZ 'release groups' which are mapped to
> mo:SignalGroup [1] instances. This class is on the expression level.
> However, the mo:release_type [2] property currently relates to
> mo:MusicalManifestation [3], i.e. to instances that are on the manifestation
> level, e.g., mo:Release [4] instances. I'm currently unsure whether we
> should switch the domain of mo:release_type to mo:MusicalExpression [5], or
> whether I should create a mapping for mo:Release instances that are related
> to their release types.

Can you be more precise about the second one? What would it look like?

Cheers,
y

> Currently, I would prefer the second one.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Bo
>
>
> [1] http://musicontology.com/#term_SignalGroup
> [2] http://musicontology.com/#term_release_type
> [3] http://musicontology.com/#term_MusicalManifestation
> [4] http://musicontology.com/#term_Release
> [5] http://musicontology.com/#term_MusicalExpression
>
>
>
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Music Ontology Specification Group" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> music-ontology-sp...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> music-ontology-specific...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/music-ontology-specification-group?hl=en.
>
>

[za...@smiy.org]

Hi,

Quoting Yves Raimond <yves.r...@gmail.com>:

> Hello!
>
>> The mapping of the MBZ 'release types' seems to be a bit difficult, since
>> they are directly related to MBZ 'release groups' which are mapped to
>> mo:SignalGroup [1] instances. This class is on the expression level.
>> However, the mo:release_type [2] property currently relates to
>> mo:MusicalManifestation [3], i.e. to instances that are on the manifestation
>> level, e.g., mo:Release [4] instances. I'm currently unsure whether we
>> should switch the domain of mo:release_type to mo:MusicalExpression [5], or
>> whether I should create a mapping for mo:Release instances that are related
>> to their release types.
>
> Can you be more precise about the second one? What would it look like?

Well, it would be a bit more complex mapping for me (I have to map the
MBZ 'release types' that are currently directly related to MBZ
'release groups' (via a foreign keys) to all MBZ 'releases' of a MBZ
'release group'). However, we do not have to change the domain of
mo:release_type then and I would personally vote for keeping this
property on the manifestation level and not pushing it on the
expression level.

Cheers,

Bo