This is the crucial problem with Wikidata and books.
90% of books are easy: "work" is the same as "edition" (eg. "How
to get an
Headache with Wikidata", Andrea Zanni, 2015, selfpublished). So it makes
sense to have just an "edition" item on WD, and have all projects link to
that page.
Sometimes things get more complicated: PInocchio, Hamlet, have hundreds of
translations (and comics, movies, TV series, etc.) so they really need to
have different items.
I'm working on these things with some (good) librarians in Italy, and they
get very confused too...
There is no easy solution to this: we need to *choose* a protocol and stick
with it.
Moreover, protocol is important because wiki projects are dynamic and
information comes one piece at the time: we are not just imposing a
structure on existing knowledge and information, but we need to find a
procedure/workflow for all the next books...
So, I change opinion on this every week, this week is this way:
* we must work just with "editions". Even in Wikipedia. The "work"
item is
an emergent property, is a librarian concept: we can create that item when
it is strictly necessary (eg. Pinocchio, Alice, Hamlet).
In Italian Wikisource we are creating some pages in a brand new "Work:"
namespace. We create it when we have different editions.
* "work" metadata, in theory, are just author and title. Not even the data
(it's the "idea" of the work).
In the end, we'll have:
WS:Index > edition (property scan of?)
WS:ns0 > edition
WP > edition (+ work if exists)
WD:Author > edition (+ work if exists)
I'd really like to settle this one and for all :-)
Aubrey
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:02 AM, David Cuenca Tudela <dacuetu(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
In Wikipedia there would be needed a better
"infobox book" that can handle
both work and edition data.
For Wikisource the issue is more complex. I was thinking that since the
"Book Manager v2" extension is supposed to handle data from Wikidata, it
could be used as an entry point to generate the list of related editions,
and override the normal interwiki list whenever it is used.
@Tpt, Raylton: What do you think of the idea?
Since our developing resources are very meager, the WsCUG could apply for
funds for a project to finish these important tasks, but it would be
important to assess how much effort it is needed and if someone can act as
a technical mentor for a potential contractor.
Cheers, Micru
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:18 AM, billinghurst <billinghurstwiki(a)gmail.com
wrote:
With the WD methodology for each book there is to
be an entry for the
book as the idea/concept. Then for each edition there is to be a separate
entry.
Now the difficulty that I am seeing is that WP links to the book/idea.
Whereas WS links to the edition. So there is no visible relationship from
each to the other in the WS <-> WP
Now while that may be correct it is problematic. Anyone have any clear
solution? If it is going to be through indirect linking then we are going
to need some clever lua work at enWS for Wikipedia linking in {{plain
sister}} and similarly at the WP side.
While I have attention, VIAF entries for works. Are they related to the
work or to an edition or is it both? I see that the translations of works
have a year in VIAF, and as that relates to an author it may be right but
it seems inconsistent.
Regards, Billinghurst
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
--
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l