Just to make things simpler :-) consider too that it's a database mistake
to presume that one "edition item" could contain only one "work
item";
often an "edition item" contains multiple "works" (think to
collections of
works by various authors, or of different works of the same author), so the
most general relationship edition-work is, in facts, a many-to-many one.
Alex
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: billinghurst <billinghurst(a)gmail.com>
Date: 2014/1/17
Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Wikidata Editions and Work items
To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library" <
wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Interesting scenario.
If we are looking at editions, then we can never interwiki them, as each
translation is its own entity, its own edition, so presumably we can only
interwiki on the premise of the concept of a book and its particular
underlying intellectual property right, not on a specific time/place
publication. Especially the case with later editions that may have
illustrations, that then complicates the matter.
In short, I have no idea which way to go, and would state that with many
components they will be basically editionless (eg. articles in a
newspaper), so we need to have a ready means to get and to import, and to
differentiate where it is necessary to show different provenance.
Regards, Billinghurst
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:18:50 +0100, Alex Brollo <alex.brollo(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
IMHO it's a matter of "data cleaness" to
prevent human mistakes. The
most
common case is an apparent one-to-one relationshio
between works and
editions, but there is an underlying one-to-many relationship; from my
small experience about database good rules, invariably problems pop up
when
database structure is designed for "simpler
case" as soon as a previous
one-to-one relationship turns into a one-to-many one (in our case, when
a
second edition must be added to the first one).
Alex
2014/1/17 Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas(a)gmail.com>
>
> 2014/1/17 Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com>
>
>> Mmm, but sometimes you have a book with just one edition.
>> That case is of course a single item, or no?
>>
>> Aubrey
>>
>
> I tend to agree with Aubrey : most of the books (but maybe not the most
> importants) have just one single edition. I'm wrong ?
>
> Cdlt, ~nicolas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikisource-l mailing list
> Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l