Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

Maurits Meulenbelt-2
Hello,

There is a ticket* in the bug tracker on turning instruments into
entities, but it doesn't seem to have been discussed on this mailing
list yet.
Obviously this would be a big feature and a schema change, and we'd have
to discuss the desirability of it first, so I didn't want to turn this
into a formal RFC just yet.
Personally I'd love to have this feature because as a translator, I
wouldn't have to worry about translating the name of an instrument and
making it impossible for an end-user to find said instrument when
editing from a different-language release.
An entity-ified instrument would simply have an alias for a language and
searching for a Harpsichord would automatically select the Klavecimbel
or Cembalo from the instrument list, depending on the language the site
is viewed in.
It would also move the translations of instruments away from the (IMO)
cumbersome Transifex to the more manageable MusicBrainz editing system.
I understand not everybody shares my ideas about the increased ease for
translating (see Mihkel Tõnnov's comment on the issue page), so I wonder
what everybody else's opinion would be.

Maurits Meulenbelt

* http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-3674

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

Rachel Dwight

On Dec 28, 2013, at 5:15 AM, Maurits <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> There is a ticket* in the bug tracker on turning instruments into
> entities, but it doesn't seem to have been discussed on this mailing
> list yet.
> Obviously this would be a big feature and a schema change, and we'd have
> to discuss the desirability of it first, so I didn't want to turn this
> into a formal RFC just yet.
> Personally I'd love to have this feature because as a translator, I
> wouldn't have to worry about translating the name of an instrument and
> making it impossible for an end-user to find said instrument when
> editing from a different-language release.
> An entity-ified instrument would simply have an alias for a language and
> searching for a Harpsichord would automatically select the Klavecimbel
> or Cembalo from the instrument list, depending on the language the site
> is viewed in.
> It would also move the translations of instruments away from the (IMO)
> cumbersome Transifex to the more manageable MusicBrainz editing system.
> I understand not everybody shares my ideas about the increased ease for
> translating (see Mihkel Tõnnov's comment on the issue page), so I wonder
> what everybody else's opinion would be.
>
> Maurits Meulenbelt

+1
Nikki and I discussed this a while back. I have some releases whose liner notes contain line-item lists of the make and models of all the instruments played.

>
> * http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-3674
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

Mihkel Tõnnov
In reply to this post by Maurits Meulenbelt-2



2013/12/28 Maurits <[hidden email]>
Personally I'd love to have this feature because as a translator, I
wouldn't have to worry about translating the name of an instrument and
making it impossible for an end-user to find said instrument when
editing from a different-language release.
An entity-ified instrument would simply have an alias for a language and
searching for a Harpsichord would automatically select the Klavecimbel
or Cembalo from the instrument list, depending on the language the site
is viewed in.

I agree it would be more comfortable for entering instrument ARs. However, the problem you describe could also be solved by allowing to search instruments by their English names (http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-6427). Of course, this wouldn't solve the other problems outlined at MBS-3674.

It would also move the translations of instruments away from the (IMO)
cumbersome Transifex to the more manageable MusicBrainz editing system.

Transifex is indeed rather cumbersome for the actual translation -- which is why I translate offline and then upload to Tx --, but as I said on the issue page, having to manually enter hundreds of instruments (~600 atm) as aliases, would be way, *waaayy* worse. If instruments do become entities, then there really should be a way to seed the aliases from .po files or such.

Note that I don't oppose making them into entities in principle -- I just really want to have a decent way to enter translations.

Best regards,
Mihkel

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

Maurits Meulenbelt-2
Searching by instruments by their English name could be a solution too,
I agree, though it would be more useful if you could search for all
languages.
And since I already translated most instrument names in Transifex, I
wouldn't like to see that effort wasted either. How feasible would it
be to import those aliases from the pot files?
I'm no programmer so I don't know how much effort that would be or if
it's even possible.

Maurits Meulenbelt

Op zaterdag 28 december 2013 18:19:30, Mihkel Tõnnov schreef:

>
>
>
> 2013/12/28 Maurits <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>
>     Personally I'd love to have this feature because as a translator, I
>     wouldn't have to worry about translating the name of an instrument and
>     making it impossible for an end-user to find said instrument when
>     editing from a different-language release.
>     An entity-ified instrument would simply have an alias for a
>     language and
>     searching for a Harpsichord would automatically select the Klavecimbel
>     or Cembalo from the instrument list, depending on the language the
>     site
>     is viewed in.
>
>
> I agree it would be more comfortable for entering instrument ARs.
> However, the problem you describe could also be solved by allowing to
> search instruments by their English names
> (http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-6427). Of course, this
> wouldn't solve the other problems outlined at MBS-3674.
>
>     It would also move the translations of instruments away from the (IMO)
>     cumbersome Transifex to the more manageable MusicBrainz editing
>     system.
>
>
> Transifex is indeed rather cumbersome for the actual translation --
> which is why I translate offline and then upload to Tx --, but as I
> said on the issue page, having to manually enter hundreds of
> instruments (~600 atm) as aliases, would be way, *waaayy* worse. If
> instruments do become entities, then there really should be a way to
> seed the aliases from .po files or such.
>
> Note that I don't oppose making them into entities in principle -- I
> just really want to have a decent way to enter translations.
>
> Best regards,
> Mihkel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

LordSputnik
I still think that similar systems should be used for Genres and Instruments (seeing as they're both tree-based systems), so I'd like to wait until the developer decide on how they'll tackle Genres before anything happens with instruments.

What I'd like to see if both Instruments and Genres as entities, which aren't created by a formal "add" process, but are formed from tags/words entered by users - a "bottom-up" approach, where user input decides what instruments and genres should be in the system. I've written this down here, and we talked about it a little at the last summit, but didn't agree on anything: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fRfpALAX5D0RAjF7upbPcaAR70OIsQk1jNOW5uuf5wQ/edit?usp=sharing

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

Frederic Da Vitoria
2014/1/1 Ben Ockmore <[hidden email]>
I still think that similar systems should be used for Genres and Instruments (seeing as they're both tree-based systems), so I'd like to wait until the developer decide on how they'll tackle Genres before anything happens with instruments.

What I'd like to see if both Instruments and Genres as entities, which aren't created by a formal "add" process, but are formed from tags/words entered by users - a "bottom-up" approach, where user input decides what instruments and genres should be in the system. I've written this down here, and we talked about it a little at the last summit, but didn't agree on anything: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fRfpALAX5D0RAjF7upbPcaAR70OIsQk1jNOW5uuf5wQ/edit?usp=sharing

I think I understand your suggestion about genres, but I fail to see the relation with instruments. Or rather, I feel instruments are sufficiently different if not structurally, at least semantically, that they would need to be studied separately. For example, I don't see when entering a tag would trigger creating an instrument entity. Reference instruments should be created manually too, because it is important to enter reference names. And I don't think a simple number of occurrences should be enough for creating an entity. If you set the limit at for example 50 occurrences (which is much higher than our current limit for instruments), I can perfectly imagine a user entering more than 50 times an instrument with the same typo, thus creating a false instrument. At least for instruments, all entity creations should be voted IMO.

I don't know much about id3 or itunes genres, but would the mapping between an instrument and a genre work?

Also, I think it would be interesting to think how user language might influence your idea. For example, in genres, sometimes exact translations don't exist, and words which seem to be a translation actually mean something different. So that it could be a good idea to create a set of genres for each language, with a way to link (approximately) matching genres between languages when possible. For example, I believe we Frenchies use the words Pop and Rock differently from Americans (and probably from English people too). OTOH, I don't think much translation issues would appear for instruments.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

LordSputnik
Of course, there wouldn't be an instrument -> ID3 genre mapping! That part applies to genres only. :P

For instruments, the user would enter an instrument name into a free text field, and this would be searched for among existing instrument entities. If it's not found, then the user can proceed to use their entry.

If other users enter the same name, then after a certain number of submissions, by multiple users, the name would automatically get promoted to an entity, and all matching relationships would be updated to use this new entity. Users could then merge or add relationships to the instrument just like a normal entity.

So basically, +1 for making instruments entities, but I'd like to see a more fluid and controlled way of creating them (rather than any old person coming along and adding an instrument with an edit, which may or may not be voted on by other editors). I don't want to limit editing instruments to a group of "Instrument Editors" though, because IMO that sort of system is elitist and discourages contribution.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

Frederic Da Vitoria
2014/1/2 Ben Ockmore <[hidden email]>
Of course, there wouldn't be an instrument -> ID3 genre mapping! That part applies to genres only. :P

For instruments, the user would enter an instrument name into a free text field, and this would be searched for among existing instrument entities. If it's not found, then the user can proceed to use their entry.

If other users enter the same name, then after a certain number of submissions, by multiple users, the name would automatically get promoted to an entity, and all matching relationships would be updated to use this new entity. Users could then merge or add relationships to the instrument just like a normal entity.

So basically, +1 for making instruments entities, but I'd like to see a more fluid and controlled way of creating them (rather than any old person coming along and adding an instrument with an edit, which may or may not be voted on by other editors). I don't want to limit editing instruments to a group of "Instrument Editors" though, because IMO that sort of system is elitist and discourages contribution.

Then we need the language to be handled in some way. Else this will become a nightmare, with the instruments written in a language/script that few users know/are able to check, and the false friends (I guess most users who know French know that the English "viola" is the same as the French "alto"). It also should be able to handle homonyms (in French the same word designates the alto (viola) and the alto (voice)). If we go this way, it is going to be tricky. But interesting :-)

When I stated first that "we need the language to be handled in some way", I meant that
- if a user enters for example "alto" and the word is NOT already known, the MB UI should ask the user which language.
- if a user enters for example "alto" and the word is already known in several languages, the MB UI should detect that in different languages it has different meanings and should tell the user so, offer him to pick the meaning really intended or create one if needed.
- if a user enters for example "alto" and the word is already known in only one language, the MB UI should tell the user so, offer him to pick this meaning if it the one really intended or create one new language/meaning if needed.

We could of course state that the language should for example be the Release's language, but this would still possibly generate bad edits for multi-language releases. Also, a user could for example buy a French release, but find the specific instruments on a German site. So that I believe that the instrument input language should remain user-modifiable.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

LordSputnik
I think it would be helpful if we allow Instruments to have images, and use these in search results to show graphically what each of the suggestions looks like.

All of your ideas for language selection/detection are good. Perhaps we could also use the site language that the user is using (once that moves from beta to the main site).

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

Frederic Da Vitoria
2014/1/2 Ben Ockmore <[hidden email]>
I think it would be helpful if we allow Instruments to have images, and use these in search results to show graphically what each of the suggestions looks like.

All of your ideas for language selection/detection are good. Perhaps we could also use the site language that the user is using (once that moves from beta to the main site).

Yes, images would definitely be useful !

I don't know where what is the current situation about languages in the DB. If it is far from handling languages correctly, and if instrument entities are implemented before languages, we could temporarily restrict the instrument language to English. English is the language currently used for the instrument tree, and it is probably the language which has the most instruments translated into it.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

"Frederik “Freso” S. Olesen"
In reply to this post by LordSputnik
Den 02-01-2014 13:44, Ben Ockmore skrev:
> For instruments, the user would enter an instrument name into a free
> text field, and this would be searched for among existing instrument
> entities. If it's not found, then the user can proceed to use their entry.
>
> If other users enter the same name, then after a certain number of
> submissions, by multiple users, the name would automatically get
> promoted to an entity, and all matching relationships would be updated
> to use this new entity. Users could then merge or add relationships to
> the instrument just like a normal entity.

I voiced this at the summit as well, but I only think this approach is
sound if that "certain number" is 1. If I add an instrument, I'll likely
want to be able to store translations/aliases and link it to external
sites immediately - instead of waiting for any number of other people to
use the instrument. (Working in niche genres often lead you to have
niche instruments.) If there's some way to add aliases/translations and
links to the instrument before it's an entity... then how is it not an
entity already?

Anyway. I'm not sure this is the place for that discussion. +1 to the
"proposal", though I wasn't aware if was something needing RFC'ing. :)

--
Namasté,
Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen <http://freso.dk/>
MB:   https://musicbrainz.org/user/Freso
Wiki: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Freso


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

signature.asc (919 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

"Frederik “Freso” S. Olesen"
In reply to this post by Frederic Da Vitoria
Den 02-01-2014 15:02, Frederic Da Vitoria skrev:
> I don't know where what is the current situation about languages in the
> DB. If it is far from handling languages correctly, and if instrument
> entities are implemented before languages, we could temporarily restrict
> the instrument language to English. English is the language currently
> used for the instrument tree, and it is probably the language which has
> the most instruments translated into it.

"Languages" are already implemented and several site translations are
well underway. We agreed at the summit to open up for the German
translation on the main site. I don't know why that's not happened yet.

If(/when) instrument-as-entities are added, we'll be able to fully
utilise the power of the alias and disambiguation systems. Two
instruments called the same can have disambiguation notes. One
instrument called different things in different languages can have
localised aliases. One instrument called multiple things in one language
can have multiple (localised) aliases. E.g., "viola" could have the
French primary alias "alto", the Danish primary alias "bratsch", and an
additional Danish alias "viola". The search system also takes aliases
into account, so searching for either viola, alto, or bratsch would make
this instrument show up in the results.

Whether we're currently "handling languages correctly" is probably
rather debatable though. I'd say no, but I think we need some more
wide-spread testing (e.g., get some non-English languages enabled on
mb.o) allowing users to get a feel for what needs to be handled differently.

--
Namasté,
Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen <http://freso.dk/>
MB:   https://musicbrainz.org/user/Freso
Wiki: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Freso


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

signature.asc (919 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

Rachel Dwight
Would specific instrument makes and models have to be implemented as aliases?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 2, 2014, at 1:03 PM, "Frederik \"Freso\" S. Olesen" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Den 02-01-2014 15:02, Frederic Da Vitoria skrev:
>> I don't know where what is the current situation about languages in the
>> DB. If it is far from handling languages correctly, and if instrument
>> entities are implemented before languages, we could temporarily restrict
>> the instrument language to English. English is the language currently
>> used for the instrument tree, and it is probably the language which has
>> the most instruments translated into it.
>
> "Languages" are already implemented and several site translations are
> well underway. We agreed at the summit to open up for the German
> translation on the main site. I don't know why that's not happened yet.
>
> If(/when) instrument-as-entities are added, we'll be able to fully
> utilise the power of the alias and disambiguation systems. Two
> instruments called the same can have disambiguation notes. One
> instrument called different things in different languages can have
> localised aliases. One instrument called multiple things in one language
> can have multiple (localised) aliases. E.g., "viola" could have the
> French primary alias "alto", the Danish primary alias "bratsch", and an
> additional Danish alias "viola". The search system also takes aliases
> into account, so searching for either viola, alto, or bratsch would make
> this instrument show up in the results.
>
> Whether we're currently "handling languages correctly" is probably
> rather debatable though. I'd say no, but I think we need some more
> wide-spread testing (e.g., get some non-English languages enabled on
> mb.o) allowing users to get a feel for what needs to be handled differently.
>
> --
> Namasté,
> Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen <http://freso.dk/>
> MB:   https://musicbrainz.org/user/Freso
> Wiki: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Freso
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

Maurits Meulenbelt-2
They could be, though I think most people adding a Stratocaster would
know it's a model of electric guitar. They could also be implemented as
sub-types of instruments, but that would mean a gazillion of new
instruments and I'm not sure if that's worth it.

Rachel Dwight schreef op 2-1-2014 21:51:
> Would specific instrument makes and models have to be implemented as aliases?
>
> Sent from my iPhone

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

Maurits Meulenbelt-2
In reply to this post by Rachel Dwight
Looking through the comments so far I think most people would like to
see instruments implemented as entities, though with some conditions.
Mikhel want to be able to seed the aliases from the .pot files used for
translations on Transifex. I think I agree on that one, since making an
add alias edit for every instruments would be a chore, and many
instruments have already been translated. I just don't know how hard it
would be to implement for a programmer, since I'm not one.
Ben seems to agree with the idea of instruments as entities, but wants a
wholly different approach of adding new instruments. I personally think
the current process is too exclusive, but I'm not sure about his
bottom-up approach either. I do think that while it's related to
instruments as entities, its not really a part of this issue, and it
would be better served in a separate proposal. Perhaps you could take
care of that yourself? You have thought about this more than me.
I'd like to take this issue forward into proper RFC territory, but I'm
not quite sure how I should proceed. Obviously my proposal can't be too
detailed, because I don't know exactly how it can be implemented. I've
made a wiki page with a summary of my ideas about this issue here:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:mfmeulenbelt/instruments I can convert
that in a proper RFC page of course, but do we need solutions for all of
the issues I've listed there before I do so?

Maurits Meulenbelt

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

Given this isn't a style issue, but a code-dependant schema change, I'm not sure what the point of an RFC would be :) How to eventually use them maybe, but that sounds like something to decide once we know how they'll be implemented...


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

Maurits Meulenbelt-2
In reply to this post by Rachel Dwight
Oh ok. I got the impression from the original Jira ticket that this
should be discussed somewhere, and I thought that would be here. Should
I take this somewhere else or just add my thought s to the Jira ticket
and forget about it for now?

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Pre-RFC: Make instruments entities

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren


On 5 Jan 2014 14:56, "Maurits" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Oh ok. I got the impression from the original Jira ticket that this
> should be discussed somewhere, and I thought that would be here. Should
> I take this somewhere else or just add my thought s to the Jira ticket
> and forget about it for now?

Discussion never hurts :) It's just that an RFC implies taking decisions and most final decisions here should probably be taken by developers when developing the feature. Adding the comments to the jira ticket would seem sensible though - "this was talked about on -style and we found these issues/have these preferences" or something like that.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style