ok so, I am hitting some mayor "english isn't my native language" butts here. but i'm learning so much for this bookbrainz expansion! (it reminds me how i learned so much terminology after i joined musicrainz)
right so. should we a) have a more generic "is a version of" to be the "parent" of all these "some kind of version" or is "derivative" an ok "parent" here. and b) so should ve have "revision" relatinoship too
:thumb: i'll read these both today
it seems from just looking here that "revisioning" is something on a level we don't have (ie not new *work* but sometihng undearneat that)
maybe
hm!
should we have a combination "edit/revision" relationship?
Mr_Monkey
I think they would just be separate work with a revision relationship.
ptitjano joined the channel
One or both of which may appear in an edition
CatQuest
gotta think aobut not having *too* many relationships either. atleast unti lthe relationship choosing mecanism is better
ah yes, let me think of an example.. early versions of ord of th rings.. was idiffernt wasn't it?
and early versions of narnia. there "lion witch & wardrobe" was the actulaly first written book
*lord of the rings*
i may have to clean my keyboard :/
Mr_Monkey
There are lots of examples out there of books that were published, and then after some period of time the author chose to revise and publish again.
Right, all of those would be revisions
CatQuest
hmm I wonder if "definite" or "authors version" or books are revisinos
yep , we need "work is revision of work" then
Mr_Monkey
Possibly? I guess it depends on what was done to the content, but I'd assume so
CatQuest
how is "edit" different
it seems to me to be much the same
Mr_Monkey
As for parent-child of these relationships, I'd have to think about it a bit
CatQuest
oh I'mdoing that too. looking into what makes sense
hmm for each relationship I think i'll make a littel blurb to go int documentation about it too, and al ink to wikipedia.
Mr_Monkey
Awesome !
A lot fo them definitely need explanations
CatQuest
ok so two other things: we have a"is the artist for" and i've set this as a sort of parent for al lthe "art" sort of ones
but honestly what kidn of artist other thna "illustrated" is there?
(there is also things liek comics but i'm getting ot that)
Mr_Monkey
All I can think of are variations of illustrations
CatQuest
so I guess "artist" is very generic, the only issue I had with it is that because we have this term in musicbrainz it's going to be confusing for mb-people coming her and thinking "artist=author" and getting confused because we als ohave "author" as a relationship D
:D
but for now it's fine
Mr_Monkey
If it appears as something like "X provided art for Y", I think that clarifies it enough
CatQuest
yes
anyway. the last thing today is this: we have "author" (the one who "writes") should this be called "writer" ? compare "artists" "perform" in mb
so "authors" "write"
the relationship (ID 8) actulaly is "write" and "was written by"
basically I was thinking the label should be "writer" not "author"
your thoguht?
+s
Mr_Monkey
What would be the reason for that change?
i.e: Is there an issue with the curent wording in your opinion?
CatQuest
no reason but to make it clearer for peopel what we mean with terminology and less-confusion in terms
this isn't critical and can be dealt with by the community if possible later
if neccesary*
Mr_Monkey
I personally find the current wording clearer. Writer I see more used in terms of occupation or carreer, while I always see "author" for what this relationship describes
CatQuest
ah
Mr_Monkey
"I'm a full time writer, and author of the book XYZ"
CatQuest
then there is ID 31. which I feels is the exact thing as ID 8 and should be depreciated. a n author or riter is stil lthe author and writer of a work evne if it is a comic or graphic novel
I've written in my notes "this should be made deprecated as it's basically the same as "author" (ID 8) any and all using this should be found and changed to ID 8"
Mr_Monkey
Hm. A fair point.
Would that be a good case for parent-child relationships? Meaning #31 as a child of #8
CatQuest
I've been putting things in "trees" already
most "his is writing" ones are already put underneath 8, like "translator" and "previously attributed to"
they are both "author" things, they are peopel wwrote
Mr_Monkey
I'm with you so far
CatQuest
worked on, an author has had creative input on a work etc
then I have the "artist-y" ones, like illustrator,
under stis I've put inker, letterer and a new one "colourist"
Mr_Monkey
Yep
CatQuest
these are all "comic book/graphic novel" things
or comics these all makes sense on the work
but only for comic books
so I see we also have "author-edition" relatinoship called "illustration"
i ee the use for both of the work-illustration things. but we need to make some rules or guides abotu when to use each
shoud lwe dissuadte the use of "Author illustrated Edition"" on comic book editions?
Mr_Monkey
Sure. illustrated edition ≠comic book
CatQuest
exactly
Mr_Monkey
I feel that's where #31 would be justified: for comics is the "author" really only the person who provided the story?
Maybe it would help to divide authorship in a clearer way for comics
CatQuest
but like. for these other roles we already *have* relationhips. and leftmost is already working on an "author credit" (which i tihkn part of this is)
well the "author" relationship says "written by" and that's als owhat we talked about before