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
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
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
@Billinghurst: Pardon my ignorance, but what's VIAF?
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:18 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
2015-06-29 11:25 GMT+02:00 Nahum Wengrov novartza@gmail.com:
@Billinghurst: Pardon my ignorance, but what's VIAF?
Virtual International Authority File https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_International_Authority_File
Not 100% sure but I think there is both entries for works and for editions.
Cdlt, ~nicolas
I believe if a work is translated, both copyrights of original author and of translator should apply. Is that correct? If so, then probably a year for each should be entered.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Nicolas VIGNERON < vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-06-29 11:25 GMT+02:00 Nahum Wengrov novartza@gmail.com:
@Billinghurst: Pardon my ignorance, but what's VIAF?
Virtual International Authority File https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_International_Authority_File
Not 100% sure but I think there is both entries for works and for editions.
Cdlt, ~nicolas
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Yes, it is right. But that is solvable with single properties.
Aubrey
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Nahum Wengrov novartza@gmail.com wrote:
I believe if a work is translated, both copyrights of original author and of translator should apply. Is that correct? If so, then probably a year for each should be entered.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Nicolas VIGNERON < vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-06-29 11:25 GMT+02:00 Nahum Wengrov novartza@gmail.com:
@Billinghurst: Pardon my ignorance, but what's VIAF?
Virtual International Authority File https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_International_Authority_File
Not 100% sure but I think there is both entries for works and for editions.
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
Not sure I see the problem.
1. A Wikidata (Qx) item is an edition of another Wikidata item (Qy) 2. Qx (the edition) has an associated (e.g. English) Wikisource page 3. Qx and/or Qy have an associated (English) Wikipedia page
All instances of 1&2 can be found like this: http://wdq.wmflabs.org/api?q=claim%5B629%5D%20and%20link%5Benwikisource%5D&a...
A bot could add/update links to the individual editions on Wikisource on the Wikipedia articles for Qx and Qy. It could even include other language Wikisources, if so desired.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:41 AM Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, it is right. But that is solvable with single properties.
Aubrey
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Nahum Wengrov novartza@gmail.com wrote:
I believe if a work is translated, both copyrights of original author and of translator should apply. Is that correct? If so, then probably a year for each should be entered.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Nicolas VIGNERON < vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-06-29 11:25 GMT+02:00 Nahum Wengrov novartza@gmail.com:
@Billinghurst: Pardon my ignorance, but what's VIAF?
Virtual International Authority File https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_International_Authority_File
Not 100% sure but I think there is both entries for works and for editions.
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
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
2015-06-29 11:46 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
Not sure I see the problem.
Same for me.
1. A Wikidata (Qx) item is an edition of another Wikidata item (Qy)
- Qx (the edition) has an associated (e.g. English) Wikisource page
- Qx and/or Qy have an associated (English) Wikipedia page
It's a bit more complex than that but I agree.
A large number (a majority?) of works have only one edition, in this case there is only one item on Wikidata, it's even easier : no problem. There is disambig-like pages on wikisources for works. In this case, no problem again, you can link Wikipedia and Wikisource directly : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q83186 Somtimes, there is wikipedia article about editions, again there is no problem here.
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Books is very useful, most of the cases are describe and explain.
Cdlt, ~nicolas
(probably Magnus' mail was not directed to the Wikisource list, I didn't receive it).
The problem is that books =/= texts, and we have "many to many" relationships at different levels.
- A Wikidata (Qx) item is an edition of another Wikidata item (Qy)
- Qx (the edition) has an associated (e.g. English) Wikisource page
Wikisource has at least 2 pages for books: ns0 and Index.
They are often not the same thing. For example, I can have an Index page for a poetry book, and have single pages in Wikisource ns0 for each poem. At the same time, I can have 3-4 index pages for a very big book, which has a single ns0 page. Every index is a volume.
Moreover, I can have both at the same times: multiple Index pages (volumes) for books that contain different works (think as a 3 volume edition of Shakespeare tragedies).
Finally, the can be a disambiguation like page to in a "work" namespace (this one is easy).
It is solvable, but it is complex.
3. Qx and/or Qy have an associated (English) Wikipedia page
I think that one of the issues here is the simple fact that the matter is complex, and even if you find a solution to the "theory", it's not easy to comply. Right now in Wikidata there is confusion, around books, and you don't really know what to do with them.
Moreover, it is not easy at all to create a new book, make the right relationships with the author and other work/edition of the same book. For example, as far as I know, you can't copy an item, and this alone is a burden to the user who has to start everytime from scratch a new item. I myself give it up most times than not....
Aubrey
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Nicolas VIGNERON < vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-06-29 11:46 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
Not sure I see the problem.
Same for me.
- A Wikidata (Qx) item is an edition of another Wikidata item (Qy)
- Qx (the edition) has an associated (e.g. English) Wikisource page
- Qx and/or Qy have an associated (English) Wikipedia page
It's a bit more complex than that but I agree.
A large number (a majority?) of works have only one edition, in this case there is only one item on Wikidata, it's even easier : no problem. There is disambig-like pages on wikisources for works. In this case, no problem again, you can link Wikipedia and Wikisource directly : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q83186 Somtimes, there is wikipedia article about editions, again there is no problem here.
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Books is very useful, most of the cases are describe and explain.
Cdlt, ~nicolas
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:16 AM Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
(probably Magnus' mail was not directed to the Wikisource list, I didn't receive it).
The problem is that books =/= texts, and we have "many to many" relationships at different levels.
- A Wikidata (Qx) item is an edition of another Wikidata item (Qy)
- Qx (the edition) has an associated (e.g. English) Wikisource page
Wikisource has at least 2 pages for books: ns0 and Index.
They are often not the same thing. For example, I can have an Index page for a poetry book, and have single pages in Wikisource ns0 for each poem. At the same time, I can have 3-4 index pages for a very big book, which has a single ns0 page. Every index is a volume.
FWIW, there is a new property that hopefully takes care of this: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property:P1957&redirect=no
Moreover, I can have both at the same times: multiple Index pages (volumes) for books that contain different works (think as a 3 volume edition of Shakespeare tragedies).
Finally, the can be a disambiguation like page to in a "work" namespace (this one is easy).
It is solvable, but it is complex.
- Qx and/or Qy have an associated (English) Wikipedia page
I think that one of the issues here is the simple fact that the matter is complex, and even if you find a solution to the "theory", it's not easy to comply. Right now in Wikidata there is confusion, around books, and you don't really know what to do with them.
Moreover, it is not easy at all to create a new book, make the right relationships with the author and other work/edition of the same book. For example, as far as I know, you can't copy an item, and this alone is a burden to the user who has to start everytime from scratch a new item. I myself give it up most times than not....
Aubrey
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Nicolas VIGNERON < vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-06-29 11:46 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
Not sure I see the problem.
Same for me.
- A Wikidata (Qx) item is an edition of another Wikidata item (Qy)
- Qx (the edition) has an associated (e.g. English) Wikisource page
- Qx and/or Qy have an associated (English) Wikipedia page
It's a bit more complex than that but I agree.
A large number (a majority?) of works have only one edition, in this case there is only one item on Wikidata, it's even easier : no problem. There is disambig-like pages on wikisources for works. In this case, no problem again, you can link Wikipedia and Wikisource directly : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q83186 Somtimes, there is wikipedia article about editions, again there is no problem here.
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Books is very useful, most of the cases are describe and explain.
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
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
It is solvable, but it is complex.
- Qx and/or Qy have an associated (English) Wikipedia page
I think that one of the issues here is the simple fact that the matter is complex, and even if you find a solution to the "theory", it's not easy to comply. Right now in Wikidata there is confusion, around books, and you don't really know what to do with them.
Moreover, it is not easy at all to create a new book, make the right relationships with the author and other work/edition of the same book. For example, as far as I know, you can't copy an item, and this alone is a burden to the user who has to start everytime from scratch a new item. I myself give it up most times than not....
TBH, I would only focus on the 90% of the cases and leave the other cases to be handled manually.
An example of how the structure is: Random Work |- edition 1 in English |- edition 2 in English |- edition 1 in Italian |- edition 1 in French
The page in edition 1 is linked to the item in Wikidata, but the interwiki links do not show up for the other editions, so it is a matter of finding out what are the other edition interwiki links and displaying them in the Wikisource page.
This has two components, the data input and the visualization component. For the data input there is the new Book Manager v2 which is the metadata frontend https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:BookManagerv2 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T17071
It is a matter of enabling a field more to link with the work item, and through it, get the interwiki links of all editions connected to that item representing the work.
I don't know if it is the proper way to do it, but I would appreciate some feedback.
For linking with the Index page there is a new Wikidata property as Magnus pointed.
Cheers, Micru
There's an underlying many-to-many relationship between works and edition, data structure IMHO should be built accordingly with the worst case: an edition that collects many different works, any of them being published in many different editions.
At it.wikisource we are going to simplify a little bit things using a convention based of the fact that "book" is a physical entity; 1. one djvu file for one book; 2. one Index page for one djvu file (this is simple :-) ) 3. at least one ns0 page exactly matching one index page.
So, given a simple one-to-one relationship between these entities, a unique wikidata edition item is sufficient for all from them.
This simple approach solves the "edition" side of the issue; the "work" side, IMHO, can only be solved with a different "work" abstract item, as we are doing into the new Work namespace.
Alex
2015-06-29 12:40 GMT+02:00 David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
It is solvable, but it is complex.
- Qx and/or Qy have an associated (English) Wikipedia page
I think that one of the issues here is the simple fact that the matter is complex, and even if you find a solution to the "theory", it's not easy to comply. Right now in Wikidata there is confusion, around books, and you don't really know what to do with them.
Moreover, it is not easy at all to create a new book, make the right relationships with the author and other work/edition of the same book. For example, as far as I know, you can't copy an item, and this alone is a burden to the user who has to start everytime from scratch a new item. I myself give it up most times than not....
TBH, I would only focus on the 90% of the cases and leave the other cases to be handled manually.
An example of how the structure is: Random Work |- edition 1 in English |- edition 2 in English |- edition 1 in Italian |- edition 1 in French
The page in edition 1 is linked to the item in Wikidata, but the interwiki links do not show up for the other editions, so it is a matter of finding out what are the other edition interwiki links and displaying them in the Wikisource page.
This has two components, the data input and the visualization component. For the data input there is the new Book Manager v2 which is the metadata frontend https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:BookManagerv2 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T17071
It is a matter of enabling a field more to link with the work item, and through it, get the interwiki links of all editions connected to that item representing the work.
I don't know if it is the proper way to do it, but I would appreciate some feedback.
For linking with the Index page there is a new Wikidata property as Magnus pointed.
Cheers, Micru
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
The issue with the approach is:
* The article page at the WP already exists for notable books, such so does the WD page, and it will be for the instance of a "book".
* We create "edition" pages, so for notable books we are already at a point of difference.
Presumably from WP we want the ability to link to the WS book via an infobox or a {{Wikisource ...}} template based on the WD data without the need to edit it ever again. It is an indirect link.
Similarly there is the situation reversed from WS to the WP from the header template linking where it is all controlled from the template sucking WD.
We are wanting this whether the link is on the interwiki is on the the one WD page or on two as originally described.
Re one edition, so one page that may the case mostly now, the more notable a work, the less likely that is to be the case.
Regards, Billinghurst
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:59 Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com wrote:
2015-06-29 11:46 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
Not sure I see the problem.
Same for me.
- A Wikidata (Qx) item is an edition of another Wikidata item (Qy)
- Qx (the edition) has an associated (e.g. English) Wikisource page
- Qx and/or Qy have an associated (English) Wikipedia page
It's a bit more complex than that but I agree.
A large number (a majority?) of works have only one edition, in this case there is only one item on Wikidata, it's even easier : no problem. There is disambig-like pages on wikisources for works. In this case, no problem again, you can link Wikipedia and Wikisource directly : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q83186 Somtimes, there is wikipedia article about editions, again there is no problem here.
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Books is very useful, most of the cases are describe and explain.
Cdlt, ~nicolas _______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
2015-06-29 11:30 GMT+02:00 Nahum Wengrov novartza@gmail.com:
I believe if a work is translated, both copyrights of original author and of translator should apply. Is that correct?
Yes, both apply to the translation.
If so, then probably a year for each should be entered.
Yes. But that already done in Wikidata (and in most of the cases the date of death is more important thant date of publishing).
For VIAF, there is entries for both works and edition (called « expressions » like in FRBR), qv. https://viaf.org/viaf/178622639/ (work) and https://viaf.org/viaf/175353827/ (expression). For Romeo and Juliet, there is around 222 expression of the work in VIAF.
wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org