JR-Productions is said to be a production company. Can it be an imprint too? Its logo is present on several releases.
I can’t see a reason why a Production company should not be an imprint too. Many examples come to mind “Philips”, “EMI”, “Columbia”…
I am not asking what is possible. I am asking what is factual.
Thanks. Yet another illustration that MB approach to information modeling is flawed by design. The procedure should start with capturing facts. Making sense of facts is the next step.
In the case of release labels, the facts are all logos present on the artwork – they all should be entered into the database (yes, a new entity type needs to be intoduced). Then some of the logos will be mapped to imprints, while the others will be mapped to other things like manufacturers, distributors, series, etc. Some might remain unmapped until there is enough information to interpret them.
2 Likes
This is already possible. If you use the Relationship Editor for Releases you can link Releases (and Release Groups) to labels(/series) in all of the ways you mentioned and several more. See How to Use the Relationship Editor and the lists of Label-Release, Label-Release Group, Release-Series, and Release Group-Series relationship types.
I am talking about totally different thing – distinguishing primary source of information (like logo) from its meaning. Relationships in its current form cannot do this as they are not mapped to sources. One might say that any relationship is a direct representation of a corresponding source. That is obviously not enough for capturing all sources. What relationship type should be used for a logo of unclear nature? There is no satisfactory answer to this until the system has the first-class concept of logo.
I don’t know, maybe the original idea was to identify logos with labels. The documentation does not clarify this. Confusingly enough, it refers to imprint as “label logo”, while “label logo” is obviously much more, as there are various types of the entity named “Label” in the system.