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@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@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@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@gmail.com>
>
>>
>> 2014/1/17 Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84@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@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
>>
>>

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