On 20 August 2012 16:54, Karen Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 8/20/12 1:24 AM, Ben Companjen wrote: > >> >> As long as there is a link to the work record, not having it in the >> edition record 'only' means the work title is an extra request away. >> I have no idea if either field is being updated when the title of a >> work record is updated. And which of these fields would be the one to >> use? (There are some 750k out of 15m records with these fields, if >> they don't both appear on one record, so it seems they are not >> actively used.) > > > Ben, you're thinking in terms of the ultimate structure, but there is a > value in retaining, for the record, what came in on the edition record. The > "work title" may differ somewhat from the title in the work record if it > consists of the entire "uniform title" from the MARC record. It will be > necessary to look at the data, not just the statistics, to determine if it > is useful. Maybe you could pull out some examples.
Yes, I have been thinking that removing bad data could help make the data more useful. I still think making the records more uniform makes it at least easier to understand and possibly more interoperable, but I understand that just removing old data won't work. Documenting it probably works better. It's very hard to understand what is in the data without documentation (issue #100 on GitHub). There is a model for Edition records, <http://openlibrary.org/type/edition> but there are all kinds of fields (work_title looks like a typo) that don't fit the model. Your previous mail has helped someone who wasn't around from the beginning :) I will try to get some examples to help complete the docs a little bit more. Ben > kc > _______________________________________________ Ol-tech mailing list [email protected] http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [email protected]
