Release of 2nd order creations?
|Assignee:||Alexander Blum||% Done:|
|Target version:||Repertoire 1) Testing phase I|
Usecase: The web user adds a creation. Heand needs to add another creation as original creation, which ist not existing in our database.
We have defined, that this web user should specify the
* Featured Artist
of the creation.
But as we also have defined, a Creation needs to have a release.
Should the web user also state the/one release of those 2nd order creations?
#1 Updated by Meik Michalke over 4 years ago
- Assignee changed from Meik Michalke to Alexander Blum
i assume such a creation would remain unclaimed when created, right? could that status be treated like some sort of pseudo-release (i.e., unclaimed creations don't need to be created with a release, but are later assigned to a proper release during the claiming process)?
#2 Updated by Alexander Blum over 4 years ago
- Assignee changed from Alexander Blum to Meik Michalke
After our last talk, the creation has no name itself. The name and also the license (which should not be specified by the web user refering to this creation right now by the way) is an attribute of the creation<->release relation.
So, it might be easier, to have a dummy release and to stick to the rule, that there's no creation without a release.
The (probably quite complex) claim process of objects with many children (e.g. an artist with a lot of releases/creations) might deal with those then, although I can't picture this clearly yet. It would probably best to include another flag for the origin of the entity creation to be able to differentiate it in a claim process.
Another place to deal with them would be the anti-duplication mechanisms, which we need sooner or later, but are also almost not conceptualized yet.
So - no specification of the release for 2nd order creations?