So do you prefer that I leave the editor in the author field? It irks me a bit
because the editor of a book rarely does any of the actual authoring, so it
seems wrong to list him or her as an author. Collecting and editing stories is
different from writing. However, it may make sense to put the editor in the
author field for searching. My understanding is that if an editor is listed in
the contributors field, then a search on the editor's name will return all the
books that he or she is credited with editing, but that would only work in the
general search, not in an author search. What do you think is better?
I could go back and place each of the authors into the author field
individually, but that is a lot of work and I find the authors in OL hard to
work with from the author field. Still, maybe that is the right way to handle
it. Except it wouldn't work for more academic works (like conference
publications) where one doesn't always have access to all the contributing
authors...
Sarah
> Actually, these probably come from Amazon records, not library records
> (the few I looked at were from Amazon). Libraries allow a book (or
> other item) to not have an author, either because it is unknown, or
> because the item was created in such a complex process that authorship
> isn't appropriate. (I believe that films fit this category). We talked
> at one point in OL of whether all of the books without authors would
> get a default author "anonymous", but decided that it might be ok for
> display but isn't at all useful for searching. It's kind of like
> having an input list and allowing people to use "other."
>
> kc
_______________________________________________
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]
