>> - If it has the word "series" in the collection name but none of them >> are numbered, should it go in the series field or edition notes? This >> gets to how strict is the definition for series. > >I agree with you, it's a note. This would count as more of a collection >than a series (the "X for Dummies" books come to mind). My general rule
>is that the books make more sense if you read them in order, like the >Harry Potter books, it's a series; if not, it's a note. Well, I won't actually claim that what AMillarBot has been doing is the best way to do it; only that it has been the conservative way to do it. Personally I'm more inclined to want collections in a list like the series field, because I like structuring data as much as practical. I'd like to be able to find, for example, the actual Chronicles of Narnia books, separate from other commentary books about the Narnia books, by searching on a series field. (Squabbling over the old and new order can go in the edition notes :-) I don't really like using the Edition Notes field for collection names, but there didn't seem to be a better place for it. I know it is not practical to have a field for everything in OL, because somebody will always need "just one more" field. I almost considered using the new "lists" functionality for imprint and collection names, but rejected it because it is tied to a user. Not good for general book metadata. - 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]
