There are multiple complications here, all rather difficult to sort out. As you note, Chapman's Homer is an anthology of works by Homer. Those same works also exist often in separate editions. Homer's works can be found in a variety of translations, and even within one language the works may have been re-translated multiple times. There are also many different anthologies, each having different selections of works.
Unfortunately, in library metadata anthologies get work titles that are often not very helpful. The one on Chapman is: Personal name: Homer. Uniform title: Works. English. 1956 The "Uniform title" is the title that represents the work. In this case the work is "Works." And it also says that it is the 1956 English translation. Other similar "unhelpful" work titles are "Selections" "Selected Works", "complete works" etc. Then I notice this book: Selections from Homer's Iliad with an introduction, notes, a short Homeric grammar and a vocabulary by Allen Rogers Brenner ... That one undoubtedly had "Iliad. Selections" as its work title. I would still include it with the other versions of Iliad, but you can see how complex this is getting. It is possible that this gathering of Homer's works into a big mass is my fault -- I seem to recall having said that we should ignore these non-title titles. It may be that having ignored them, all of the anthologies got mushed together with Homer in general. I do not understand how all of these different works got assigned the work title of Chapman's Homer, however. That part of the algorithm is beyond me. There isn't a clear set of instructions in library cataloging on what to do with anthologies (also called "aggregated works") when creating work sets. There was recently a 100+ post thread on a library list debating this issue. In general, though, an anthology is a work in itself, so in libraries Chapman's Homer should not be gathered together with other anthologies of Homer nor with separate works. I don't think we need to follow this because it means that each anthology becomes a separate work -- which I don't think meets the needs of most users. My gut feeling would be to separate the individual works into their own Work clusters (both full versions and the ones that are only selected bits), and allow the anthologies also to form a single cluster, perhaps using the work title "Works". I presume that when the algorithm re-clusters them it will pick up the language codes so you will be able to select on language when searching. kc On 1/28/12 6:08 PM, Charles Horn wrote: > 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] > <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> > > http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to > > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > > > > -- > Karen Coyle > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> http://kcoyle.net > ph: 1-510-540-7596 <tel:1-510-540-7596> > m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234> > skype: kcoylenet > > _______________________________________________ > Ol-discuss mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to > [email protected] > <mailto:[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] -- 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]
