Hi, I am replying to Karen's email below because it does technically answer the question I had for a different context. However, for ancient classical works the advice below seems to be so completely not adhered to, I am wondering if an exception is made for such works. At any rate, I would like opinions on what is best practice for such works, and how I could go about 'fixing' the current issues.
Here is an illustrative case which applies to many other classical authors whose works have been printed since the 1400s in various combinations (Collected works of various sizes): Currently there is a work titled 'Chapman's Homer: the Iliad, the Odyssey and the lesser Homerica' which has 623 editions, which in general are editions of Homer's Illiad, with some combined Illiad + Odyssey, and other Homeric works in the same volume. The bulk of these editions are most definitely NOT Chapman's. Now, I could rename the work to 'The Illaid', but I don't feel that is correct either as it includes editions with the Odyssey. On top of that, I was trying to locate Alexander Pope's translation of the Illiad (which I would consider to be a notable English language 'work' distinct from other Illiads). I have not searched exhaustively, but I could not find it under Pope OR Homer. I don't know where it should be either (and each edition of that work was published in multiple volumes -- I have not looked into how volumes should be handled yet, but that is another issue for me to research later) I have found it useful to browse all published Iliad (e.g) editions grouped under the one work to get a feel for the timeline of early works, and it helps to track down an edition when all I know is a place of publication and a vague publication date range. I imagine this is useful to others too. What is the terminology for this grouping at a level above a published work, and is there a way to handle its distinction from a work properly in Open Library? Another effect of this which I have found to be a problem is when I look at a particular early publisher, say: http://openlibrary.org/publishers/Excudebat_Johannes_Hayes (which incidentally is a mess due to the different languages used on title pages -- there are many garbled entries for this single publisher active roughly between 1670-1705) is because he published one edition of the Illad in 1672, his Publishing History graph is full of editions up to the 2000s, well after he was dead. This graph would be a really great feature if I could standardise the publisher's name, and remove all the editions he had nothing to do with. In the meantime I am creating a list (great new feature!!) to gather together all of the works and editions published by this printer: http://openlibrary.org/people/hornc/lists/OL15186L/John_Hayes-- currently this list is also messy as there are many duplicate records for works and editions. It is a work in progress. These specific examples can be generalised to many early classical works and authors, which is where I am interested in improving the OpenLibrary records. If anyone has any tips on how best to handle such classical works which are frequently printed in Latin or Ancient Greek, causing all sorts of problems for catalogue transcriptions, I would be very keen to put them into practice! Thanks, Charles. On 5 January 2012 05:57, Karen Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > Probably more than you want to know.... > http://tinyurl.com/7ynjaj9 > > Those are the library rules. OL doesn't have rules of its own, but my > gut feeling is that a set of community guidelines wouldn't hurt -- at > least it would give folks a place to go for answers. > > A short answer could be ... > > There isn't a precise line where a new record is created, but the > advice is to be conservative and only create a new record when > differences are "substantial" in terms of user needs. Fixing typo's > does not mean a new record is created. In some countries, each new > printing (which often have minor fixes) is listed on the title page > verso as a new "edition" -- but this isn't "edition" in the sense we > tend to use it in English, just additional print runs. Hints that you > have a different edition are: different publisher, different year of > publication, different number of pages. > > kc > > > Quoting Ben Companjen <[email protected]>: > > > Hi all, > > > > As a novice book cataloguer, I'm wondering if there are any guidelines > > saying how unique a book must/should be to be called a separate > > edition. > > Currently I'm wondering if I use should add another edition of > > "Languages and machines" that is exactly like > > http://openlibrary.org/books/OL814068M/Languages_and_machines, except > > that my Item has the text "Reprinted with corrections, January 1998". > > In general, is a reprint a different edition (if you can tell them > > apart by looking at X in "Xth print")? Hypothetically, what if one > > batch of books has a typo on the cover and the next batch hasn't, > > making the typo the only noticeable difference? > > > > Regards, > > > > Ben > > > > P.S. I have been a Discogs.com user/cataloguer for quite some years > > and know the rules more or less by heart, but most things I don't know > > can be looked up in the Submission Guidelines. It's not that adding > > books to OL is hard, but I've become used to "looking it up in the > > Guidelines" or forums and if all else fails, then start asking. OL > > puts me straight through to the mailing lists. Should I have asked > > this question here, or on the librarianship list, by the way? > > E.g. guidelines for determining whether a release is unique are here: > > > http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-general-rules.html#Unique_Releases > > _______________________________________________ > > 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]
