### Author:  [@reosarevok](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/reosarevok)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2017, 8:18am UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/levels-in-the-structure-of-works/293047/105 "2017-09-05T08:18:59Z")
> [@MetaTunes](#):
>
> Could I just clarify re the XML. Does the
>
> \
>
> remain, but with the addition of something like
>
> \
> \collection\
> \
>
> ?
>
> In other words any existing XML lookups using the parts type will still work?
Yup, that’s how this should work.
---
### Author:  [@Kid\_Devine](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/Kid_Devine)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2017, 12:17am UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/levels-in-the-structure-of-works/293047/106 "2017-09-19T00:17:42Z")
I don’t understand the definitions of Collection and Movement, especially Movement:
> [@reosarevok](#):
>
> a case where the parent work consists of several parts, which are generally meant to be performed one after another in a particular order.
This would apply to just about every multi-part work, wouldn’t it?
Determining when to use (and not to use) Act and Number would be less trouble since these are usually already included in the work title.
---
### Author:  [@derobert](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/derobert)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2017, 7:46am UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/levels-in-the-structure-of-works/293047/107 "2017-09-19T07:46:54Z")
> [@Kid\_Devine](#):
>
> This would apply to just about every multi-part work, wouldn’t it?
Probably does apply to just about every one. At least symphonies, concertos, etc. I think “movement” will be by far the most common one.
@reosarevok BTW, in your list of options, which would use use for Wagner’s Ring? It’s odd to call the four operas “movements”, but that seems match the definition given. I suppose we can continue to use the generic part/part of for things that don’t fit?
---
### Author:  [@reosarevok](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/reosarevok)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2017, 7:56am UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/levels-in-the-structure-of-works/293047/108 "2017-09-19T07:56:20Z")
I would expect to just use “part of” for everything which isn’t really anything of the others, yes (and I’d expect it to be used quite often). More options can always be added in the future if we see a need.
---
### Author:  [@Kid\_Devine](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/Kid_Devine)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2017, 9:47am UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/levels-in-the-structure-of-works/293047/109 "2017-09-19T09:47:15Z")
> [@derobert](#):
>
> which would use use for Wagner’s Ring? It’s odd to call the four operas “movements”, but that seems match the definition given.
It was suggested earlier that the Ring Cycle operas should be a “collection” type rather than “movements”, or perhaps both at once?
> [@ProfChris](#):
>
> Der Ring des Nibelungen, WWV 86 - is a “Collection Work”
---
### Author:  [@reosarevok](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/reosarevok)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2017, 12:22pm UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/levels-in-the-structure-of-works/293047/110 "2017-09-19T12:22:11Z")
I added the attributes I listed in my first message today (without link phrases for now, because orderable rels ignore them at the moment anyway):
> **[5 Gesänge, op. 72](https://musicbrainz.org/work/88d7e0ea-474d-431c-a38a-69d440085c19)**
>
> Work written by Johannes Brahms
> **[Symphony no. 5 in C minor, op. 67](https://musicbrainz.org/work/d03bff61-26fc-301b-98ac-4d8e85771cbc)**
>
> Symphony written by Ludwig van Beethoven
> **[Sylvia : Acte I](https://musicbrainz.org/work/46a310aa-ac03-4a96-868c-f2f23254d4cf)**
>
> Work written by Léo Delibes
>
> Part of Sylvia
Of course, it seems that broke something again, since I can’t load every relationship editor for works now. But I have @yvanzo on the case.
@MetaTunes: see [Sylvia : Acte I](https://musicbrainz.org/ws/2/work/46a310aa-ac03-4a96-868c-f2f23254d4cf?inc=aliases+work-rels) for an example of how it looks now 🙂 (I’ve also asked @yvanzo to change the ws to have an XML attribute with the ID of the relationship attribute like we have for relationship types right now)
---
### Author:  [@henadel](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/henadel)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2017, 2:05pm UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/levels-in-the-structure-of-works/293047/111 "2017-09-19T14:05:45Z")
It looks great! Is there any way to see a full work (like the Sylvia one) on a single page? A “flat” version of all the parts/movements/numbers…
---
### Author:  [@stupidname](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/stupidname)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2017, 2:42pm UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/levels-in-the-structure-of-works/293047/112 "2017-09-19T14:42:17Z")
Editing works to use this would be a lot easier if we could set an attribute for all child works with one click.
---
### Author:  [@reosarevok](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/reosarevok)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2017, 3:28pm UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/levels-in-the-structure-of-works/293047/113 "2017-09-19T15:28:43Z")
> [@stupidname](#):
>
> Editing works to use this would be a lot easier if we could set an attribute for all child works with one click.
I fully expect something for that from @loujin pretty fast once he tries to edit this stuff 😉
---
### Author:  [@MetaTunes](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/MetaTunes)
#### Post date: [September 20, 2017, 9:11am UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/levels-in-the-structure-of-works/293047/114 "2017-09-20T09:11:15Z")
> [@reosarevok](#):
>
> see [Sylvia : Acte I](https://musicbrainz.org/ws/2/work/46a310aa-ac03-4a96-868c-f2f23254d4cf?inc=aliases+work-rels) for an example of how it looks now
Looks good. Next week I’ll take a look at incorporating an option into Picard “Classical Extras” plugin to take advantage of this. The new version of the plugin will also cater for multiple parents, partial recordings, medleys and arrangements, as well as reading saved file tags and allowing saved options to be used when re-tagging.
---
### Author:  [@ijabz](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/ijabz)
#### Post date: [September 20, 2017, 4:34pm UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/levels-in-the-structure-of-works/293047/115 "2017-09-20T16:34:47Z")
Great, although _Number_ doesnt really mean anything couldn’t we use _Scene_ instead
---
### Author:  [@ListMyCDs.com](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/ListMyCDs.com)
#### Post date: [September 20, 2017, 4:59pm UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/levels-in-the-structure-of-works/293047/116 "2017-09-20T16:59:02Z")
> [@ijabz](#):
>
> Great, although Number doesnt really mean anything couldn’t we use Scene instead
Scenes and numbers are completely different things. Scenes might change several times during a single number. For ballet we might consider having a scene attribute. For opera we typically shouldn’t even have scene works (as explained on the guidelines).
---
### Author:  [@MetaTunes](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/MetaTunes)
#### Post date: [September 20, 2017, 7:44pm UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/levels-in-the-structure-of-works/293047/117 "2017-09-20T19:44:19Z")
I agree that “scene” doesn’t work, but I’m not sure what to make of “number” either. Movement and collection add information, but I don’t see what would be the difference between “number” and an un-typed part-of relationship.
---
### Author:  [@ListMyCDs.com](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/ListMyCDs.com)
#### Post date: [September 20, 2017, 8:33pm UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/levels-in-the-structure-of-works/293047/118 "2017-09-20T20:33:29Z")
> [@MetaTunes](#):
>
> I don’t see what would be the difference between “number” and an un-typed part-of relationship.
If something is a number we know that it’s typically part of stage work (theatre, opera, or oratorio…).
---
### Author:  [@reosarevok](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/reosarevok)
#### Post date: [September 20, 2017, 9:06pm UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/levels-in-the-structure-of-works/293047/119 "2017-09-20T21:06:49Z")
> [@ListMyCDs.com](#):
>
> I don’t see what would be the difference between “number” and an un-typed part-of relationship.
Not all parts of a work with numbers are numbers, too. See [the Mozart Singspiel I shared earlier](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mozart-Die-Entf%C3%BChrung-aus-Serail/dp/B015NHRA6G/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1504531990&sr=8-3&keywords=Mozart%2BDie%2BEntfuhrung%2Baus%2Bdem%2BSerail) where the sung sections are numbers but the others aren’t.
---
### Author:  [@MetaTunes](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/MetaTunes)
#### Post date: [September 20, 2017, 9:35pm UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/levels-in-the-structure-of-works/293047/120 "2017-09-20T21:35:41Z")
> [@ListMyCDs.com](#):
>
> If something is a number we know that it’s typically part of stage work (theatre, opera, or oratorio…).
Hmm. Leaving aside that an oratorio is not a stage work, wouldn’t it be better to use work type to say if a work was an opera etc.? “Number” is not an accepted term for musical parts of an opera or oratorio AFAIK. Typically such parts might be preludes, overtures, arias, recitatives, choruses, finales or just plain (instrumental) movements. For a “musical”, “number” might have a specific meaning (similar to aria) and my understanding is that it is this usage that has been borrowed for the new scheme for classical works. In other words, only arias etc. would be “numbers”, not recitatives or spoken sections. Given the potential for confusion, I think some style guidelines would be needed for this. Also, should the part types I have listed above be applied in some way - but as work type or relationship attribute?
Finally, oratorios tend to have Parts rather than Acts, so perhaps that should be a specific relationship attribute?
---
### Author:  [@ListMyCDs.com](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/ListMyCDs.com)
#### Post date: [September 20, 2017, 10:10pm UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/levels-in-the-structure-of-works/293047/121 "2017-09-20T22:10:49Z")
> [@MetaTunes](#):
>
> Leaving aside that an oratorio is not a stage work
True, even though sometimes staged by definition it isn’t a stage work.
> [@MetaTunes](#):
>
> only arias etc. would be “numbers”, not recitatives or spoken sections.
Recitatives are music and by definition these can be also numbers (even though composers often haven’t numbered recitatives).
> [@MetaTunes](#):
>
> wouldn’t it be better to use work type to say if a work was an opera etc.?
Work type defines the type of work but the attribute defines the type of part (or type of relation).
> [@MetaTunes](#):
>
> “Number” is not an accepted term for musical parts of an opera or oratorio AFAIK.
> **[Number (music)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_(music))**
>
> In music, number refers to an individual song, dance, or instrumental piece which is part of a larger work of musical theatre, opera, or oratorio. It can also refer either to an individual song in a published collection or an individual song or dance in a performance of several unrelated musical pieces as in concerts and revues. Both meanings of the term have been used in American English since the second half of the 19th century.
> In musical theatre, the lyrics of the individual song numbers ar...
> [@MetaTunes](#):
>
> Finally, oratorios tend to have Parts rather than Acts, so perhaps that should be a specific relationship attribute?
I’m pretty sure there’s no specific name for oratorio parts so this seems unnecessary.
[Previous page](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/levels-in-the-structure-of-works/293047.md?page=5)
[Next page](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/levels-in-the-structure-of-works/293047.md?page=7)