Please : no enviarme mas este boletin.Eliminar esta subscripcion.Thank you.
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:16:01 -0400 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ol-discuss] Series titles: include individual ID or not? Karen I think you have identified the heart of the matter with this but I am unsure whether "reader series" is an appropriate term. I think "series" and "publication series" (see the google search) may be more accurate in their description of variables. Places like Wikipedia, commonly use "series" alone to denote fictional series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Novel_series) whereas series of academic works are called "Monographs in series" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_series). That is a small nitpicky thing though, Alex On 15 October 2010 11:08, Karen Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: I think we have two meanings of series going: 1. A group of works that have something meaningful in common based on their content (Harry Potter as a series, Alan Banks mysteries as a series) 2. A designation of membership in a published set (The Great Books Series) Library cataloging only recognizes #2. The series titles in parentheses in the Amazon records also appear to be #2. I don't know of a distinguishing term for #1, however. There are web sites that chronicle book series, like: http://www.nlc.state.ne.us/ref/booksinseries/ to help people read all of a series, and to read it in order. Maybe we can call #2 a 'publisher's series' and #1 a 'reader's series'? With this distinction, #1 is at the work level, #2 is at the edition level. kc Quoting Alan Millar <[email protected]>: >> Currently the series field is attached in the database to editions, we >> should move it to the work, because all editions of a work should be >> part of the same series. > > That begs the question of what constitutes a series then. I see books > labelled something like "Classic Reprint Series" because that one > publisher decided to reprint a bunch of old books, according to their > own criteria of what they thnk is classic. In this case, the series > does only apply to the one edition, and not all of the editions of the > work. Does that mean this series label gets demoted and we deem it > not really a series? Sounds like a slippery-slope nightmare of > judgement to me. Or is there a standard definition of series that I > just don't know about, and everyone else knows that such a series is > not really a series? > > Just based on my casual observations, it seems like the series should > be available at the edition level. Perhaps like the title and > subtitle, though, there could be a series entry for both the work and > the edition. > > - Alan > _______________________________________________ > Ol-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to > [email protected] > -- Karen Coyle [email protected] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet _______________________________________________ Ol-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ Ol-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Ol-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [email protected]
