[Data-modeling] Upcoming schema changes

[Jeff Prucher]

Part of the impetus to merge the author and editor types is that most data
sources for bibliographic information don't distinguish between author and
editor at the property level, although some make the distinction with a
sub-field or additional code. Anthologies aren't written, but they can
usually be found by querying the compiling editors' names against the author
(or equivalent) field in, say, a card catalog or online bookstore. So when
we import data from other sources, and we plan to import quite a lot, we
start to run into trouble if we have to make a decision about whether to
stick the creator in the "author" or "editor" field (under the old schema)
if our data source does not make that distinction. Whereas, by combining
them, we can at least assert their "authorship" (or whatever term we decide
on), and can omit the specific role (author, editor, etc.) in cases where
it's ambiguous or unknown.

I wonder if the name "author" might be better than "writer" for the general
type, since people seem pretty used to conflating the notions of author and
editor already -- not in terms of the actual roles involved in producing a
written or published work, but in how they think about finding such a work.

Jeff


> -----Original Message-----
> From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com 
> [mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf Of Micah Saul
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:58 PM
> To: Freebase data modeling mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Data-modeling] Upcoming schema changes
> 
> I agree completely with these remarks.
> 
> Writer = poet, author, essayist, etc.
> Writer != editor
> 
> I admit I have not looked at the publishing domain at all, so 
> this question may be obvious, but what do we gain by making 
> these changes?  
> How redundant are the properties of, say, "author" and "editor"?
> 
> On Feb 26, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Tom Morris wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Bryan Cheung 
> > <bryan.cheung at metaweb.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> The type "writer" will replace the
> >> types "author," "editor," "poet," "reviewer," and "interviewer";
> >
> > I'd be willing accept that a "poet" and an "author" are 
> both examples 
> > of a "writer," but an "editor" is a different beast altogether.  If 
> > you really want a term that will cover all of these roles, 
> it needs to 
> > be something more generic like "contributor." Of course, the more 
> > generic you make it, the less useful it becomes (not just the name, 
> > but the number of roles it covers).
> >
> > Tom
> > _______________________________________________
> > Data-modeling mailing list
> > Data-modeling at freebase.com
> > http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Data-modeling mailing list
> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
>