5 Jul 2010 14:30
Re: RFC: Add social networking AR
Sorry that I didn't manage to send this earlier, I haven't been around much for the last few days. Andrew John Hughes wrote: > Expected expiration date: 5th of July, 2010 > > This proposal concerns the addition of a new artist<-->URL and > label<-->URL AR type which allows an artist or label to be associated > with a social networking identity such as those provided by Facebook > and MySpace. > It also involves the merging of the existing MySpace and PureVolume > ARs into the general social networking AR. If you're intending merging the relationships to be part of this RFC, I really think they should both be proposed separately because merging/removing relationships isn't something easily reverted. In particular, the MySpace relationship is one of the most commonly used ones (we have almost 40,000 MySpace URLs, which makes it the 4th most common domain after discogs.com, amazon.com and wikipedia.org) so suggesting a change which will affect that many relationships really should be something made clear to people, and not just something stuck on the end of another RFC which doesn't even mention the MySpace type in the subject. Both the MySpace and PureVolume types have guidelines about formatting the URLs as well, which are missing from this proposal. Then there's the problem that we can't actually merge two relationship types, they would all have to be migrated from one type to the other.(Continue reading)
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> > Expected expiration date: 5th of July, 2010
> >
> > This proposal concerns the addition of a new artist<-->URL and
> > label<-->URL AR type which allows an artist or label to be associated
> > with a social networking identity such as those provided by Facebook
> > and MySpace.
>
> > It also involves the merging of the existing MySpace and PureVolume
> > ARs into the general social networking AR.
>
> If you're intending merging the relationships to be part of this RFC, I
> really think they should both be proposed separately because
> merging/removing relationships isn't something easily reverted. In
> particular, the MySpace relationship is one of the most commonly used
> ones (we have almost 40,000 MySpace URLs, which makes it the 4th most
> common domain after discogs.com, amazon.com and wikipedia.org) so
> suggesting a change which will affect that many relationships really
> should be something made clear to people, and not just something stuck
> on the end of another RFC which doesn't even mention the MySpace type in
> the subject.
>
> Both the MySpace and PureVolume types have guidelines about formatting
Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (
RSS Feed