MetaBrainz Blog

[ Before reading this post, make sure to read the previous NGS related post ]

The question that is on my mind right now is how to build a coherent roadmap that gets us from the mb_server codebase that we’re running today to the NGS codebase, complete with new edit system. The factors that play into this are:

1. mb_server codebase: This is the codebase that we’re running today. We’re updating it one more time this year and then early next year we hope to move to the Template Toolkit work.
2. Template Toolkit: This is Oliver Charles’ work to clean up our codebase. Template Toolkit is available for perl and looks like it will be available for Python soon. Our hope is the clean up the codebase so that we’re ready to take on more developers to help with the development — especially as we move closer to NGS.
3. NGS playground: See the previous post for details on this.
4. NGS proper: This is the finished NGS that we roll out onto the MusicBrainz servers.

Finally, the BBC has been keen on getting what they are calling Cultural Identifiers. This name is a bit of a misnomer — essentially it would be the release related portions of NGS. Release groupings that allows us a more product centric approach to managing releases. Right now we list and identify releases with different track layouts as totally separate releases, even though they ought to be properly related. The BBC wishes this work to happen sooner than later and have indicated that they would be willing to sponsor this work.

That’s awesome, right??

Well, yes. But there is one problem. In the last post we concluded that we should move to NGS in one fell swoop. And now the BBC would like us to take an intermediate step? As much as we agreed that moving to NGS in one step, I think we must work with our most visible partner. Since we are severely resource constrained (we have just enough money to hire a part time University student right now) I feel compelled to find a way to get the BBC what they want as soon as possible while accepting money from them to boost our development funds. Taking money from the BBC may allow us to accelerate our development schedule towards NGS. But at the same time, it may slow us down getting to NGS.

I’m very much looking for feedback on how to best make this happen and how to best accomplish all these goals. Do you think that adding an intermediary step in exchange for funds from the BBC is an acceptable compromise?

Sorry for the delay in continuing my MusicBrainz Server Roadmap updates — we’ve been wrestling with some server configuration nightmares…

I’ll start by giving some background on the Next Generation Schema (NGS). People have been calling for an improved schema that can intelligently handle classical music, proper artist attribution and support for packages of releases (among many other things). In 2005 we held a summit in Germany where we laid down some groundwork for the requirements for a new schema and created a first rough draft schema. Holes were quickly poked into that schema, but this let us find the weak points and let us do a better job of designing the schema for the next attempt. The next attempt was an invite only summit held in London in 2007, where we created a schema that should be pretty close to what we’re actually going to put in place.

Since then we’ve been debating how to make NGS a reality. And to say the least, its been a real pain so far. The change from the existing schema to NGS is a very large project and will be far from trivial. For instance, do we migrate to NGS in one step or take a few steps? Can we keep our existing edit system or do we need to rewrite it from scratch? Now that we have the schema done, what should the user interface look like? How can we make it simple for those users who want to do simple data changes? How can we allow more expert users to make all sorts of detailed changes while keeping the user interface simple? What would the best tools for building a new UI be?

To answer these questions, Lukáš has been working on the NGS playground in his spare time. The NGS playground is Lukáš’ attempt to answer these questions. So far, he has answered two questions:

1. We should move to NGS in one step. Moving to NGS in multiple step steps will cause too many headaches and too much lost work. Each step would require extensive work to glue the old portions to the new portions and these glue layers would later be discarded. Overall, not a very efficient means of moving forward.
2. We need to dump the edit system and start over. We’ve learned a lot about how to do an edit system right — and the existing system won’t cut it moving forward. Its time to start over.

In the process, Lukáš is trying out a bunch of new tools to see how they fare. He’s also working in Python to see if that is the proper language to move forward with. While I haven’t run the NGS playground yet, Lukáš has the schema finished except for the Works concept, which is pretty straightforward. Also, I believe that the script to convert an existing database to the new format is also done. However, Lukáš’ work is only a playground — its an attempt to see how we can pull off the user interface for NGS. That’s NGS in a nutshell today.

In my next post I will continue this thread with thoughts on how we go from today’s mb_server and the Template Toolkit work and move towards the NGS work that Lukáš is doing. For now, if you’re a computer geek who is interested in looking at NGS, please take a look at the NGS playground. There isn’t much documentation yet — so consider this a “some assembly required” project. We’re interested to hear your comments on the playground — please feel free to post them here.