On a release, if I try to add the same country twice, it will not allow saying I cannot use the same one twice. So, does this mean that where one store may have been released on a different day than another, we need a separate release solely based on the release date for a store?
If the release is exactly the same, I’d just use the earliest release date. I think this is commonly agreed on.
Musicbrainz doesn’t focus on which dates a release is available on different stores. Maybe in some cases that information could be valuable and if you think so, feel free to add it to the annotation.
Edit: For physical releases, a repress of an album could require a new release on MB even if the album art looks the same.
Edit2: Replied in the new thread.
You cannot use an annotation for different references within the same release anyway, different annotations means it is different releases. I actually mentioned that in another post and there was no interest in that either. In the digital world, the date is a key factor. To ignore this is a big mistake in my opinion. Is this a real global consensus here, or is it a consensus for the physical release mindset?
You could list the multiple store release dates in the single annotation.
Since release events consist of only a date and a country, even if you were able to add the same country twice, there’d be no way to tell which event corresponded to which store.
That is a good point. I guess it is the same though as release events on physical releases, where the tie to the event country and date is not there to the reference, but it is all there which in many ways is better than not there (making it wrong at times).
Would we rather have lacking information that is not only lacking, but also thusly wrong in some ways, or more information that may not be easy to tie together? Hmmm, good point again…
I think using the annotation to that extent is not proper usage as it is supposed to differentiate one listed release from another, not define different aspects in it, meaning it is to define outside of its internal relationships, not define its own internal relationship differences. In the O-O theory here, once you have a release, everything under it shares the qualities of its parent release. If not, it is a new release, or in MB, sometimes a release event.
I think you’re confusing annotation with disambiguation. Regarding annotation:
The purpose of this field is to add information that usually doesn’t fit into the strict structural data schema of MusicBrainz (be it due to technical limitations that may be addressed later, or because the information in itself has to be free-text).
yes, I did confuse that for that statement. I guess the annotation could be used for either way on that… to link the release events to the references, or to list out the different dates for the same country.
I guess question answered, it is actually N/A to me question. So this is basically closed then as the options presented as possible here do not meet the needs of tagging or identifying the digital media. The lookup will need to be able to pull something to identify a digital release from another. The standard label+barcode+catalog does not really apply to digital, and the factors that do are not used in a useful way… at least yet. The digital media will fight for equality in this medium-ist society!