[Data-modeling] Upcoming schema changes

[Tom Morris]

I was thinking of the same type of editor as you, not an acquisitions
editor or copy editor or any other type of editor.  "Author" is better
than "writer," but still, to my mind, implies the creation of texts as
opposed to the selection and arrangement of texts.  Unfortunately, the
only alternative to "author" that I can think of is "contributor."  I
think part of the problem is that they're fundamentally different
roles, so any term that covers both tasks is going to be extremely
generic.

Tom

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Jeff Prucher <jeff at metaweb.com> wrote:
> It just occurred to me that part of the issue here might be due to the
>  ambiguity of the term "editor". The "book editor" type, and corresponding
>  "editor" property on the book type that I want to eliminate/merge with
>  "author" is meant to refer to editors of anthologies, collections, reference
>  works, and other similar collaborative efforts. It is not meant to refer to
>  the acquiring editor of a book (which would really have to be modeled at the
>  book edition level, anyway, since they're tied to a publisher).
>
>  I'd like to move forward with this change, so I'd like to hear if anyone has
>  any responses to my suggestion to name the basic type "author" (rather than
>  writer), or any other suggestions for what to call it.
>
>  Thanks,
>  Jeff Prucher
>
>
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com
>
>
> > [mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Prucher
>  > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 11:16 AM
>  > To: 'Freebase data modeling mailing list'
>  > Subject: Re: [Data-modeling] Upcoming schema changes
>  >
>  > 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
>  > >
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > 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
>