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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l




--
Etiamsi omnes, ego non

_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l