A good example: Treasure Island from Roberl Luis Stevenson
We have the "work" here: Treasure Island https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q185118 in the item, we have a property called "edition", which links to 2 different items: * Treasure Island (1883, Cassell & Company) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q14944007 * Treasure Island (1911, Charles Scribner's Sons) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q14944010
I would say that this is a good model: we have the item for the first edition too, for books that important.
For the majority of books (those who don't have important translations or different editions), "work" and "edition" level could be merged in the same, unique item.
Of course, wiki-style: if you want a different item, you just create it. The basic level is a single item.
What do you say? Do we agree on this?
Aubrey
I disagree Aubrey - I feel that in no case work item and edition item should be merged into one. They are deeply different entities, and they deserve a specific ID (IMHO).
Alex brollo
2014/1/17 Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com
A good example: Treasure Island from Roberl Luis Stevenson
We have the "work" here: Treasure Island https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q185118 in the item, we have a property called "edition", which links to 2 different items:
- Treasure Island (1883, Cassell & Company)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q14944007
- Treasure Island (1911, Charles Scribner's Sons)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q14944010
I would say that this is a good model: we have the item for the first edition too, for books that important.
For the majority of books (those who don't have important translations or different editions), "work" and "edition" level could be merged in the same, unique item.
Of course, wiki-style: if you want a different item, you just create it. The basic level is a single item.
What do you say? Do we agree on this?
Aubrey
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Mmm, but sometimes you have a book with just one edition. That case is of course a single item, or no?
Aubrey
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree Aubrey - I feel that in no case work item and edition item should be merged into one. They are deeply different entities, and they deserve a specific ID (IMHO).
Alex brollo
2014/1/17 Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com
A good example: Treasure Island from Roberl Luis Stevenson
We have the "work" here: Treasure Island https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q185118 in the item, we have a property called "edition", which links to 2 different items:
- Treasure Island (1883, Cassell & Company)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q14944007
- Treasure Island (1911, Charles Scribner's Sons)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q14944010
I would say that this is a good model: we have the item for the first edition too, for books that important.
For the majority of books (those who don't have important translations or different editions), "work" and "edition" level could be merged in the same, unique item.
Of course, wiki-style: if you want a different item, you just create it. The basic level is a single item.
What do you say? Do we agree on this?
Aubrey
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
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
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
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
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
wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org