[Data-modeling] Why is "Musical performance role" an included type of "Musical instrument"?

[Christopher R. Maden]

Ed Laurent wrote:
> I just posted a similar question 
> <http://www.freebase.com/discuss/threads/music/instrument?domain=/music> 
> on Musical instrument but want to cast a wider net for input here.
> 
> It appears that "Musical instrument 
> <http://www.freebase.com/type/schema/music/instrument?domain=%2Fmusic>" 
> has an included type of "Musical performance role 
> <http://www.freebase.com/type/schema/music/performance_role?domain=%2Fmusic>". 
> However, a musician plays an instrument, s/he is not that instrument. 
> Musical instrument could have a musical performance property that links 
> to a person/group/role type but having "Musical performance role" as an 
> included type of "Musical instrument" doesn't make sense. People, not 
> instruments, have musical group membership, musical contributions, and 
> track contributions (unless the type is used for individual instruments 
> instead of types of instruments).
> 
> I propose refactoring. Agree? Disagree?

Disagree.  I am not sure why you took “musical performance role” as an 
implication that the instrument is a musician.

The performance role (which could perhaps have a better name) is used 
for connecting musicians to groups or recordings.

John Bohnam ---drums--> Led Zeppelin
Robert Plant --lead vocals--> Led Zeppelin

The thing in the middle of the arrow is a performance role.  Performance 
roles can be musical instruments, vocal ranges, ensemble roles like 
orchestra, chorus, or string quintet, conducting, etc.

Suggestions for a better name for that role are welcome.

Is that clearer?

~Chris
-- 
Christopher R. Maden
Data Architect
Freebase.com: <URL: http://www.freebase.com/ >
Metaweb Technologes, Inc. <URL: http://www.metaweb.com/ >