HomeGroupsTalkZeitgeist
This site uses cookies to deliver our services, improve performance, for analytics, and (if not signed in) for advertising. By using LibraryThing you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your use of the site and services is subject to these policies and terms.
  • LibraryThing
  • Book discussions
  • Your LibraryThing
  • Join to start using.

LibraryThing gets work-to-work relationships!

New features

Join LibraryThing to post.

This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.

1timspalding
Edited: Feb 11, 2011, 4:45pm Top

THIS TOPIC HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY "REBOOTED" AT http://www.librarything.com/topic/109828

New members who want to follow along and contribute can start there. You don't necessarily need to read this.





Check out the blog post:
http://www.librarything.com/blogs/librarything/2011/02/librarything-gets-work-to...

Here's a screenshot of the area from the Lord of the Rings:



Some proposed rules:

1. CREATE NO NEW WORKS TO DO THIS. Do not, for example, create new books—and therefore works—for all the items in an anthology. This isn't the right way to do that.

2. This isn't for series. We have a series feature! We can, however, finally link the various "sequels" to Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre and etc.

3. Make the closer link. If you link the Fellowship of the Rings directly to the Tolkien omnibus, you won't be able to also link it to the Lord of the Rings.

4. For container/contained relationships, a book can have multiple fathers or children. So, for example, all the HP books belong to one or more omnibuses. Do not, however, decide that HP omnibus 1-3 contains HP omnibus 1-2. (That's silly. It contains the works. That's not the same thing as overlapping in a containing way, so to speak.)

Jeremy helped me come up with the list of relationships(1). Obviously NO list is going to be perfect. Many of you will want an option to add new relationships, or modified ones, like "free adaptation" or "partial commentary on." I want to hold off on that for now, and if we do it, the interface should nudge you toward the standard list. That way, we can get data that is comparable, albeit at the cost of some precision.



1. The standard disclaimer applies: Any errors in the list are entirely Jeremy's fault.

2elenchus
Feb 10, 2011, 2:36pm Top

Tease.

3lorax
Feb 10, 2011, 2:38pm Top

Two weeks.

4timspalding
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 2:40pm Top

Some day I'll create a technology that allows me to write a blog post and a talk post which link to each other before either is created. Not today. :)

5jbd1
Feb 10, 2011, 2:41pm Top

SimulThingPost. I like it.

6elenchus
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 2:48pm Top

1. CREATE NO NEW WORKS. It's clear to me now that although this is a nice feature--people want to avoid getting recommendations for omnibuses, etc.--this can't go live for all until we have essays and articles and so forth. See below on that issue and DO NOT CREATE THEM.

In general, I agree completely. Am I wrong in thinking this rule is not meant to discourage "creating" a new title ("book"), if for some reason the separate volumes of an omnibus are not yet catalogued in LT? Those works should be created, by cataloguing them as you would any new title.

Or am I lost in how works are "created" in LT, and in fact any book not yet catalogued by a member is already in LT, just not in anyone's library?

I raise this pedantic point out of concern some naive users would misconstrue the intent as a moratorium on adding new works.

7lorax
Feb 10, 2011, 2:48pm Top

Can we finally delete erroneous relationships?

8jbd1
Feb 10, 2011, 2:50pm Top

>7 lorax: - Yes, have at them!

9timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 2:54pm Top

>6 elenchus:

Right. I'll change it to "Create no new works just to do this."

10lorax
Feb 10, 2011, 3:01pm Top

If someone already has created works for all the short stories in an anthology, do you have an objection to using this feature to indicate the contents of the anthology? Or is the "this isn't the right way to do that" stronger than the "don't make new works just to use this feature"?

11MaidMeri
Feb 10, 2011, 3:02pm Top

This is awesome! I've been noting contents of omnibuses/collections/anthologies in the comments section in the hope that I, or my children, might live to see this day. :D

Will this eventually be reflected in the "you have x books and x works by this author" field? As in, if I have the LotR omnibus, I'll be shown as having one book and three works by Tolkien or something?

Regardless, this is the second massive improvement within a short period of time and I'm very impressed. Thank you!

12timspalding
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 3:04pm Top

>10 lorax:

I don't know. How's that? :) What do you think?

I'm happy to see it, but I am also worried it will encourage people to do it.

13brightcopy
Feb 10, 2011, 3:04pm Top

This is awesome. I gotta say, Tim, all this new stuff is like Christmas in February. It's Thinguary!

14DaynaRT
Feb 10, 2011, 3:06pm Top

Well now I'm confused. Are we supposed to use this to list the contents of anthologies or not?

15timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 3:06pm Top

Any suggestions for visualization options?

I'm thinking there should be a page listing the top parodies, etc.

We'll also need a stats page showing all the parodies in your books, etc.

But if there are brighter ideas, I'm game to hear it.

16timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 3:07pm Top

>14 DaynaRT:

No. Don't use it for that. Link existing works. Anthologies will be handled by explicitly adding them inside of your book/edition/expression/work/whatever.

17lorax
Feb 10, 2011, 3:10pm Top

12>

Well, it depends on what the timescale for getting another solution is, to be honest. bluetyson has already entered literally thousands of SF short stories, and I suspect I can describe the contents of lots of anthologies using only existing works. I sympathize with your not wanting to encourage people to do this, but unless there's an alternative way to have "contents of this anthology" in the works I think they're going to do it anyway.

18suitable1
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 3:12pm Top

I would hope that the contents of an anthology will be at a different level than the current definition of a "work".

Edited to add: I type too slowly.

19_Zoe_
Feb 10, 2011, 3:10pm Top

I'm glad this has been released.

I'd say that short stories etc. shouldn't be part of this, because they'll eventually be handled some other way. If you're going to allow already-existing short stories to be included, you might as well get rid of rule #1. (I don't personally feel strongly either way, but from a practical viewpoint, I just don't think you can make exceptions for existing stories without opening the floodgates.)

20rsterling
Feb 10, 2011, 3:12pm Top

I'm trying to find a good example so I can see for myself, but does this get rid of the problematic "sibling" relationship that was identified in beta testing (where every book that had ever been listed in an anthology with another book was listed as having a relationship with it)?

21_Zoe_
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 3:13pm Top

I'm thinking there should be a page listing the top parodies, etc.

We'll also need a stats page showing all the parodies in your books, etc.

But if there are brighter ideas, I'm game to hear it.


No ideas for this particular feature, but I just want to say that I love stats things in general and I hope we'll see more of them overall.

(Aside: the suggestion to include a "more" link for all zeitgeist book lists is currently doing well in the polls.)

22lorax
Feb 10, 2011, 3:14pm Top

Sorry, one more question.

Will this eventually be used to allow us to not see recommendations for, say, the boxed set when we have all the constituents, or vice versa? (e.g. someone who has the three volumes listed separately seeing The Lord of the Rings on their recommended list.)

23Jannes
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 3:56pm Top

This is a great and much longed-for feature. Well thought out and elegantly implemented, as usual. Thank you!

My only problem with it is that my librarian-OCD is now in danger of kicking in and preventing me from getting very much done this weekend except cataloguing relationships...

24DaynaRT
Feb 10, 2011, 3:18pm Top

Link existing works.

All the short stories I linked (and have now unlinked) to this anthology already exist as works. If we're not supposed to do that, maybe the guidelines could be more clear.

25timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 3:18pm Top

I would hope that the contents of an anthology will be at a different level than the current definition of a "work".

Depends on the meaning of "level." User-interface-wise, they need to be differentiated, obviously.

but does this get rid of the problematic "sibling" relationship that was identified in beta testing

Yes, I killed that relationships. Possibly-misleading trivia.

Will this eventually be used to allow us to not see recommendations for, say, the boxed set when we have all the constituents, or vice versa? (e.g. someone who has the three volumes listed separately seeing The Lord of the Rings on their recommended list.)

Those are the sorts of things we can do. There are dangers here, however. You want recommendations for the Hobbit because you have a box set, okay? So, are you ready to be flooded with recommendations from "Tiger! Tiger!" because you have the Norton Anthology of English Literature?

We have to really keep our eyes on two balls--structure and presentation of structure, broadly understood.

26rsterling
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 3:20pm Top

Just FYI but the "relationships" part of the Zeitgeist Helpers Log is now producing an error message, probably because of this change:
http://www.librarything.com/log_helpers.php?view=workrelationships

Bug report here:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/109727

27readafew
Feb 10, 2011, 3:20pm Top

cool, so where's my badge?

;)

28lorax
Feb 10, 2011, 3:21pm Top

So, are you ready to be flooded with recommendations from "Tiger! Tiger!" because you have the Norton Anthology of English Literature?


No, but I think that having all the constituent parts should be counted as having the whole. For the other direction, if the whole has only a few -- say, four or fewer -- "parts" it's probably reasonable to do recommendations that way, but not if it has dozens. (Besides, you've said that we shouldn't use this for anthologies.)

29_Zoe_
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 3:22pm Top

>25 timspalding: Are you saying we should be using this for individual poems? I don't think they exist as works right now, so that's not something to worry about. Or am I misreading your post completely?

30Nicole_VanK
Feb 10, 2011, 3:40pm Top

Awsome. Off to explore. (Well, tomorrow probably since I've had a couple of beers now).

31rsterling
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 3:44pm Top

It would be nice if, under "edit," we could re-order the list of contained works. There may be cases, for instance, where one work contains works A,B,C,D, but no one has yet cataloged work B. So later, when someone does add book B to a LT catalog, and then to work-to-work relationships, the list will read A, C, D, B instead of A, B, C, D. Right now, the only way to correct this is to delete most or all of the relationships and re-enter them in the correct order.

32bragan
Feb 10, 2011, 3:44pm Top

Oh, this is wonderful! Something I very, very much wanted!

*does the happy dance and immediately ruses off to link up a gazillion omnibuses*

33timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 3:45pm Top

>29 _Zoe_:

No, I'm saying that we will eventually be able to catalog poems, etc. It presents problems, because not all constituent things are created equal.

34JGKC
Feb 10, 2011, 3:49pm Top

I think we need more relationships.

For example, there's quite clearly a (strong) relationship between Hellboy and BPRD but none of the current models fit. And I can't quite put my finger on what the relationship should be called.

Companion Piece?
Intertwined with?

Or would this be more a case of needing relationships for series?

35_Zoe_
Feb 10, 2011, 3:52pm Top

>33 timspalding: I think that should be part of the consideration when you move to the poem level--is a poem still going to be called a "work", or will you come up with a different classification ("sub-work"?) for that sort of thing? Define the concept to make sense in the system, rather than limiting the system to avoid problems with the not-yet-realized concept.

For the case that we're dealing with now--book-length works--it does make sense for recommendations to act as if we own the constituent parts.

36timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 3:55pm Top

>34 JGKC:

I don't know the examples, but there are ways of indicating shared characters, etc. We could add a way to tie together fictional universes. I'd put that in CK, though, not this. CK gives you an attribute to a work. Other works may share that attribute. This gives you a pointer from one work to another. Obviously, you can express those relationships in each other's terms, but there is a best way to express them.

37Jannes
Feb 10, 2011, 3:58pm Top

One question, though: how far do we stretch the definition of some of these relationships? Is the complete guide to middle earth a study guide, supplement or commentary of the lord of the rings? Or is it neither, since it also covers Bilbo and The Simarillion? And is Adam Roberts' Science Fiction (The New Critical Idiom) to be considered a guide to, for example, Dune since it contains a case study of it? I'm not trying to nit-pick this great new feature, I just want to have some boundaries so I won't go completely bananas...

38timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 4:01pm Top

For the case that we're dealing with now--book-length works--it does make sense for recommendations to act as if we own the constituent parts.

So, my opinion is that, for right now, it's not necessary to delve into component works. The advantage is not great, and I can see clear disadvantages. For example, the basic algorithm is "people who have read these things, read that." All things being equal, every book you have gets one "vote." (In fact, the vote is bent by the popularity of the book.) In any case, if we counted component pieces now every omnibus would get six votes, as it were. All this needs to be worked through. It's worth adding that this is truly virgin territory. Libraries don't effectively track and never use container/contained relationships. Neither does Amazon, etc.

39timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 4:04pm Top

So, anyone want to chime in with what the default behavior should be when a work is combined? Move all work-to-work relationships?

40_Zoe_
Feb 10, 2011, 4:05pm Top

>38 timspalding: My concern is at a more basic level: just getting rid of bad recommendations from the existing for-user lists. The component works don't need to play a deep role in the recommendations algorithm; I just want a filter applied at the end making sure you don't recommend books that we already own.

41timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 4:08pm Top

Ah, yes. I think that's an unambiguously good choice. Ditto on series, though. It should put a damper on personal recommendations from series you have. On work pages, it subordinates them so you basically see only one.

42timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 4:13pm Top

No, you've put your finger on it. I'm surprised people haven't come up with more of these edge cases. I think I'll start a thread.

In general, I think more data is better than less. But there are going to be edge cases, and we should talk about them.

43_Zoe_
Feb 10, 2011, 4:14pm Top

>41 timspalding: It's always nice when we agree :)

Ditto on series, though. It should put a damper on personal recommendations from series you have.

Absolutely. I'd also really like the "exclude authors in your catalogue" option back.

Then if I could just filter out the low-rated books, I'd be all set :)

44agneson9
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 11:36pm Top

Will there be checkmarks on the series page?!

Because I love me all the checkmarks going down the series page.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/109753

45Musereader
Feb 10, 2011, 4:19pm Top

#18, 19, 24 I have SF anthologies of three or four (short) novels, anthologies that contain whole novels alongside several short stories, chapbooks of short stories that were published in anthologies as well as on thier own, anthologies that were published in one volume hardbacks and 3 or 4 volume paperbacks, not to mention the ace doubles, a lot of which were later reprinted on thier own and sometimes expanded into fuller works and hard to tell which is which. I've got a lot of work ahead

Question: SF writers had a terrible habit of taking an older work, expanding, reworking, or putting back bits editors cut out and rereleasing them under the same title (sometimes a different one, but usually the same), I wouldn't feel right putting the older work as an abridgement of the newer work, do I go with adaptation or abridgement?

46lorax
Feb 10, 2011, 4:20pm Top

38>

Frankly, I think that's a smaller problem than what we have now -- lots and lots of people seeing recommendations for material they already have cataloged, because it's cataloged as an omnibus.

If I have a single-volume edition of Lord of the Rings, I don't necessarily need to see recommendations based on The Two Towers -- I just don't want to see The Two Towers as a recommendation. It should be smart enough to know that I "have" it, and not show it to me.

47keristars
Feb 10, 2011, 4:28pm Top

So earlier I tried out Sister Carrie and realized that I could do with some clarification:

The primary version is Sister Carrie (1).

There is another version called Sister Carrie the Unexpurgated Edition (2) (the Philadelphia one) which contains passages that were cut from (1).

And finally, there is Sister Carrie - Norton Critical Edition (3) which contains (1) AND the expurgated text from (2), but not in the same order as (2).

So I figured (3) contains (2) which contains (1). But should I have entered it as (1) is abridgement of (2)? and (3) contains (2)?

And does (3) properly contain (2) even though it's more like (3) = (1) + ((2)-(1))? (does that make sense?)

48timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 4:33pm Top

>47 keristars:

Probably ends up as three expressions, though. We don't have that layer yet.

49infiniteletters
Feb 10, 2011, 4:39pm Top

47: In my opinion "abridgement" is a smaller work from a larger work, it's like "excerpt".

Contains works better for your example than abridged.

50lubetzky
Feb 10, 2011, 4:42pm Top

This message has been deleted by its author.

51lubetzky
Feb 10, 2011, 4:44pm Top

>38 timspalding:

I would not say never. Some libraries stand out. For example, State Library of Kansas has done lots of analytical cataloging (container/contained relationships) | http://www.skyways.org/KSL/Ref/misc/analytics.html So has Lane Medical Library, according to Miller's Bibliographic Access Management at Lane Medical Library | http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/203523750 And, apparently German Catalogers create part records for just about everything, according Eversberg in The Part -> Whole Relationship in German and American Cataloging Data | webdoc.gwdg.de/ebook/aw/reuse/reusep.htm I look forward to the day when American Cataloging practice follows the German tradition. Perhaps eventually this will be the result of the work that comes out of FRBR Working Group on Aggregates | http://www.ifla.org/en/events/frbr-working-group-on-aggregates By the way, I have on good authority that OCLC has at least discussed generating analytics from Publisher's ONIX feeds.

52keristars
Feb 10, 2011, 4:48pm Top

49> Yeah, I went with "contains" because "abridgement" doesn't really explain the history - the original publication was the shorter version. I think the unexpurgated one didn't come out until the 1980s. There are only a few ISBNs associated with it, compared to the number that are associated with the regular one.

48> Is it three expressions, though? (3) contains other things besides (1) and (2), and (2) has substantial material that was cut out of (1) before publication. It seems to me that we're talking about at least two works here (though I can see (2) and (1) as being expressions of the same work).

53_Zoe_
Feb 10, 2011, 4:51pm Top

How does the coming editions level affect what should be done with relationships where there's a dead language exception in play?

54Musereader
Feb 10, 2011, 4:51pm Top

#49, but can an abridgment come before the work in question, Raymond Feist republished Magician in 1992 with deleted scenes restored to the 1982 edition. We really need a revised relationship, I've got a whole bunch of them.

55prosfilaes
Feb 10, 2011, 4:56pm Top

I'm having trouble making connections to new works. For example, I was working on The Mammoth Book of New World Science Fiction and found that Hawk among the sparrows included by an anthology and the novella I was searching for. After separating out the novella, it didn't appear in searches.

56rsterling
Feb 10, 2011, 4:57pm Top

The question about an expanded version of a previous work: maybe this would be an "expression" - whenever we clarify that concept - but maybe it also raises the issue of whether we need to be able to add other kinds of relationships.*

"Is an expanded version of" seems like a good contender.

Another difficult case would be Peter Mathiessen's Shadow Country, which is a reworking - i.e. rewriting - of a trilogy previously published as three separate works. It's not exactly accurate to say that Shadow Country "contains" the other three novels, since the three parts of the new novel are based on the original three novels, but are reworked and rewritten. It wouldn't be an expression either, I don't think. It's a retelling of the story of those original 3 novels, but not an anthology of them, or an expression of them.

*Just for reference, here are the current relationships that are possible:
Contains

Is a retelling of
Is a (non-series) sequel to
Is a (non-series) prequel to
Is an adaptation of
Is an abridged ersion of

Is a parody of
Is a reply to
Was inspired by

Is a study or guide to
Is a supplement to
Is a commentary on the text of
Is a concordance to

Is a student's study guide to
Is a teacher's guide to

57brightcopy
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 5:15pm Top

56> As an example, Philip Jose Farmer often expanded his books in later printings. This doesn't make the originals abridgments, expanding a short story into a novel later makes the short story an abridgment.

58prosfilaes
Feb 10, 2011, 5:14pm Top

Another problem: when I try to add http://www.librarything.com/work/428614 DL2: Dragons of Flame as contained in Les Dragons du Désespoir, suivis Des Dragons de Flamme http://www.librarything.com/work/7056563, it gives me a checkmark like they already are, even though it's not showing.

59Athabasca
Feb 10, 2011, 5:33pm Top

I just wanted to say THANK YOU - this was my major issue with LT and now it's happily resolved. Like #23, I'll need to give up on real life for a while until I sort out all the relationships - I seem to have a lot of related books!

Only suggestion - movie tie-ins to original novels??

60tortoise
Feb 10, 2011, 5:46pm Top

So here's an interesting issue.

Sphereland is a non-series sequel to Flatland. There's an omnibus edition of both: Flatland/Sphereland. I can give Sphereland either a "contained in" relation to the omnibus, or a "non-series sequel" relation to Flatland, but not both -- the one blocks the other.

Bug or feature?

61saltmanz
Feb 10, 2011, 5:51pm Top

56/57> Additional examples:

Orson Scott Card's Treason is a rewritten version of his earlier A Planet Called Treason, with 10% new material.

Paul Kearney just released a new omnibus volume of the final three books in his Monarchies of God series. It's called Century of the Soldier and contains The Iron Wars, The Second Empire...and a massively-rewritten version of the final book, Ships From the West.

62timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 6:23pm Top

47: In my opinion "abridgement" is a smaller work from a larger work, it's like "excerpt".

I'd say the difference is that an abridgment transforms the work--it involves recasting it, not just taking a part of it.

How does the coming editions level affect what should be done with relationships where there's a dead language exception in play?

When we get expressions (see other thread), we'll combine the dead-langauges into the work, I think. For now, I'm using the main, translated work as the subject of commentaries and etc.

"Is an expanded version of" seems like a good contender.

Good. I'll add it soon.

reworking

Let's add that, then?

Bug or feature?

Bug. Will look at.

63jbd1
Feb 10, 2011, 6:30pm Top

Yeah I like "Is an expanded version of" too.

On "Reworking" - what's the difference between it and "retelling"? A case as in the Card example in #61?

>58 prosfilaes: - that one's very odd. Tim?

64keristars
Feb 10, 2011, 6:31pm Top

"Is an expanded version of" seems like a good contender.

Good. I'll add it soon.


Awesome! That'll solve my Sister Carrie/Unexpurgated Edition problem.

65timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 6:32pm Top

>63 jbd1:

I'd say Lo's Diary or The Wind Done Gone is a retelling. Reworking is done by the author, I think.

66jbd1
Feb 10, 2011, 6:34pm Top

Good. Fine distinction.

67jjwilson61
Feb 10, 2011, 6:51pm Top

38> So, my opinion is that, for right now, it's not necessary to delve into component works. The advantage is not great, and I can see clear disadvantages. For example, the basic algorithm is "people who have read these things, read that." All things being equal, every book you have gets one "vote." (In fact, the vote is bent by the popularity of the book.) In any case, if we counted component pieces now every omnibus would get six votes, as it were. All this needs to be worked through. It's worth adding that this is truly virgin territory. Libraries don't effectively track and never use container/contained relationships. Neither does Amazon, etc.

Argh. That's the whole reason I've been waiting for this feature. Currently, a lot of us are cataloging both the omnibus and it's component parts so we can get all the connections for MWYB and recommendations. We can manage it by creating an Inclusions collection but it's an inconvenience and it forces us to misrepresent our actual library within LT. If the works are overrepresented in recommendations because both the omnibus and the separate works are counted, I can live with that. Although it doesn't seem like that big of a problem to decrease the weight for them to compensate. Perhaps count the omnibus as half and divide the other half over the component works (so if the omnibus contained two works each of those works would count as a quarter).

68brightcopy
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 7:08pm Top

64> I don't know, I have this feeling there should be some difference between "original version" and "expanded version". Does that make sense? It seems a fundamental difference that:

1) The Stand was first published with a lot of material edited out (as opposed to abridged out), then later the original uncut version was published as The Stand: The Complete and Uncut Edition.

2) Treason is a rewrite of A Planet Called Treason

3) Two Hawks From Earth was later expanded into The Gate of Time

I'd feel like the Sister Carrie Unexpurgated version was an example of #1. It's also possible that #2 and #3 are two closely related to be two different relationships, though.

69infiniteletters
Feb 10, 2011, 6:52pm Top

How are we handling retellings of fairy tales? The straight versions, not the ones that use multiple stories.

70lilithcat
Feb 10, 2011, 6:59pm Top

I noticed that certain relationships can only go one way. For instance, it is possible to say that Work A "was inspired by" Work B, but it does not seem possible to say that Work B "was the inspiration for" Work A.

71eromsted
Feb 10, 2011, 7:01pm Top

Another problem with "expanded edition": nonfiction texts are fairly frequently republished with additional material, but no change to the original material. In cases like this I would say the expanded edition simply contains the original edition. In fact, I would go with contains unless the original material were substantially rewritten, such that I would consider it a distinct work from the original if it were published on it's own.

But many people might choose "expanded edition" if it were an option.

I think a lot of this can get very messy, very fast and I hope people don't use the new feature as a reason to break up works that they would have left combined in the past.

72JGKC
Feb 10, 2011, 7:10pm Top

@ 67

But doesn't decreasing the weight only work for members who catalog both the omnibus and the works contained within? What about members who only catalog the work? Or just the omnibus?

Having said that, I admit that I'm not entirely sure as to what you're saying so apologies if I'm completely out to lunch here.

73jjwilson61
Feb 10, 2011, 7:11pm Top

71> I think Contained should be limited to cases where one work consists of multiple other works. Using it for cases where some additional material has been added (but that additional material isn't by itself a work) just muddies the waters.

74jjwilson61
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 7:17pm Top

72> I'm talking about the case where just the omnibus is entered (on the assumption that with this feature it should no longer be the case that entering the individual works would be necessary to get all the connections). So if I had the omnibus ABC which contained the works A, B, and C, then LT would weight my links through ABC at 0.5, and it should automatically link me through A, B, and C as well but only count those as 0.5/3 or 0.167.

ETA: However, I don't think the problem of overweighting with omnibuses is really that big a deal and I wouldn't mind if nothing were don to counter it.

75brightcopy
Feb 10, 2011, 7:19pm Top

73> Agreed. I, too, wish Contained in/by was simply an omnibus/anthology/boxed set type of thing.

76infiniteletters
Feb 10, 2011, 7:20pm Top

I would like to keep contains/contained in.

77_Zoe_
Feb 10, 2011, 7:20pm Top

I think a lot of this can get very messy, very fast and I hope people don't use the new feature as a reason to break up works that they would have left combined in the past.

Agreed.

I think Contained should be limited to cases where one work consists of multiple other works.

I think this makes sense, though I haven't thought through all the implications.

78jjwilson61
Feb 10, 2011, 7:25pm Top

76> Huh? Was anyone talking about getting rid of the Contains/Contained in relation?

79brightcopy
Feb 10, 2011, 7:27pm Top

77> I think a lot of the thinking around Contained in/by gelled before we had the idea of additional relationships like "Is expanded version of" and "Is abridgement of", etc. Time to melt those thoughts down and see what kind of shape they take with these new possibilities in mind.

80_Zoe_
Feb 10, 2011, 7:29pm Top

>79 brightcopy: I just don't want to lose the basic idea that a certain degree of minor change is allowed before we get a completely different work.

81brightcopy
Feb 10, 2011, 7:32pm Top

80> Yeah, that's a good point. A think there needs to be some help that explains that something like "Is expanded version of" denotes significant changes, not minor ones. Of course, that's using fuzzy terms to define other fuzzy terms, but sometimes this is unavoidable.

82aethercowboy
Feb 10, 2011, 7:40pm Top

>1 timspalding:.

:D

Only much, much larger.

83fundevogel
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 7:54pm Top

It would be neat if there was a way to note what books a particular book references, either narratively or as a source.

Like Cancer Ward references Gargantua and Pantagruel in it's story and A Short History of Christian Theophagy cites The Golden Bough as a source.

84brightcopy
Feb 10, 2011, 7:56pm Top

83> That's more of a CK thing. I think it's been suggested before, so check around for the old threads. Or you could just start your own, anyway. Sometimes good to start the discussions fresh.

85eromsted
Feb 10, 2011, 7:57pm Top

>75 brightcopy:
So what about Norton Critical Editions? They are a work plus essays and other materials that are often not otherwise published. I would say an NCE contains the regular edition of the work.

86brightcopy
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 8:07pm Top

85> As I stated over in the editions/expressions discussion, I think this should be handled by a "Is critical edition" relationship. I'm not sure if that would be handled by these types of work-work relationships, or expressions, or what. But they should be handled one way or the other. I think the fact that critical versions are so completely different from simply slapping a few books together in an omnibus is in itself an argument that they shouldn't be lumped together in the same bucket (Contained in/by).

87jbd1
Feb 10, 2011, 8:09pm Top

>86 brightcopy: - I agree with that; I think NCEs and their ilk are probably best handled at the expression level, rather than the work level.

88brightcopy
Feb 10, 2011, 8:41pm Top

85/86/87> I think one possible key is that it's possible to "have" an omnibus through having all the constituent parts (even if you have them in OTHER omnibuses). With something like the NCE, there is no way to do this. The only way you can have all the material in an NCE is to have the NCE. This seems to me to be two different fundamental categories of relationships.

89eromsted
Feb 10, 2011, 8:43pm Top

>86 brightcopy:&87

I don't get it. If Work B reprints the entire text of Work A but also includes sufficient material that the two should not be combined then why not say Work B includes Work A?

If we only say B includes A in some of these cases, what's the standard? Everything in B has to be independently published? Why does that matter? To my mind, if I've got B I've got A.

90eromsted
Feb 10, 2011, 8:48pm Top

>88 brightcopy:
But I'm most interested in showing that I have the included work if I have the larger edition. If I have an NCE I don't also need a regular edition unless I just like a particular edition.

If I have Bedford's The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin: with related Documents, I have The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin.

And more obscurely, if I have A History of Private Life, Volume I, I have Paul Veyne's The Roman Empire which was originally published as part one of the former title.

91revelshade
Feb 10, 2011, 8:50pm Top

I would like some advice. I went to associate an omnibus (The Communipath Worlds) with its constituent works and found that one of them (The Communipaths) had only been published as an ace double with a work by another author! Should I go ahead and associate/contain? It's only half true! I don't collect doubles, how have they been handled, anyway? Bibliographically I believe they are considered two separate works bound back-to-back rather than collections (always seemed screwy to me) so I would think each double should have two works in LT, one for each side, but sniffing around the site I'm finding them as single works under whichever author had the faster fans.

So I guess I really have several related questions.

Is there a standard way works published back-to-back or 'dos' are supposed to be handled in LT?

Now that works can be associated would it make sense to go through and make sure each half has its own work in LT and then relate them to each other? Maybe Tim can add a "published 'dos' or 'back-to-back with'" relationship? I guess that wouldn't really be right. I hate doubles.

If the consensus is that doubles are single works should I contain the double in the omnibus or not? Actually I already did it, but shouldn't I undo it?

Sorry for the ramble.

92rsterling
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 8:58pm Top

"Excerpted in" might be another good relationship. Many anthologies will inlcude part of a work but not all of it.

eta: or, "contains an excerpt of"

93Musereader
Feb 10, 2011, 9:24pm Top

#91, the doubles are a really annoying thing, some of the works published in dos a dos format were never published again, so they shouldn't have individual works. For the ones that were republished singly, since there was a strict word limit on the dos a dos format, most of them were reworked by the writer before republishing, theres an Ace doubles group with an old thread here http://www.librarything.com/topic/8001#top about cataloging them

94timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 9:31pm Top

How are we handling retellings of fairy tales? The straight versions, not the ones that use multiple stories.

That's an excellent question, because, basically, fairly tales have no original version. I think you just link all of them with "a retelling"?

Argh. That's the whole reason I've been waiting for this feature.

I think they'll be various situations where expanding it all makes sense, places where it doesn't and places where it will be optional. Your point is taken.

The thing is, your request is easy--you just start with a different set of works. That's fine. But work-to-work recommendations can't include component works, or the Norton Anthology will dominate recommendations.

I noticed that certain relationships can only go one way. For instance, it is possible to say that Work A "was inspired by" Work B, but it does not seem possible to say that Work B "was the inspiration for" Work A.

The "flip" wording for that is "Inspired." I'm not sure I agree with you on the one-way-ness of this.

expanded edition

Expansion per se shouldn't change a work. For example, adding two stories to the Norton Anthology shouldn't change it. Obviously, there are gray areas. Norton Criticals are a well-known one.

I think a lot of this can get very messy, very fast and I hope people don't use the new feature as a reason to break up works that they would have left combined in the past.

Right. That needs to be clear. None of this changes the rules aobut what belongs in a work and what doesn't. A work includes edition changes, unless the edition change is truly radical—something where a normal conversation would differentiate between the two. There aren't many examples of that out there. The Encyclopedia Britannica might be one.

I think Contained should be limited to cases where one work consists of multiple other works.

What exactly is the alternative? I'm confused.

I think it consists of that, and when a work is split up. Under current rules, there are separate works for volume 1 of something, if that has been published separately and is in LibraryThing so.

I think a lot of the thinking around Contained in/by gelled before we had the idea of additional relationships like "Is expanded version of" and "Is abridgement of", etc.

Okay, the error here is that you've added the word "edition." That's not in the description. These relationships are between works.

The paradigmatic example would be something like Robert Remini's multi-volume biography of Andrew Jackson. He published it. It's a work. Later on, he produced a one-volume biography of Jackson. It was to some extent cut down from the former, but extensively reworked too, and is it's own distinct work.

So what about Norton Critical Editions? They are a work plus essays and other materials that are often not otherwise published. I would say an NCE contains the regular edition of the work.

I have no answer for NCEs. I think the answer will change when we have expressions.

95lorax
Feb 10, 2011, 9:37pm Top

I think Contained should be limited to cases where one work consists of multiple other works.


What exactly is the alternative? I'm confused.

A work and some non-work objects. The most obvious example is what you quote later in your post, an NCE, that contains a work plus essays and commentary and notes that do not themselves constitute a work or works but that are significant enough that under current practice warrant separation from the main work.

96brightcopy
Feb 10, 2011, 9:57pm Top

94/95> Another example I've seen is a novel and a sequel. The original novel was published by itself, but the second novel was only published in an omnibus with the first novel. There is no standalone second novel.

As such, this omnibus doesn't contain multiple other works, it contains one work plus a bunch of stuff that is only in the omnibus work. I think it was an Anne McCaffrey novel/novella.

Okay, the error here is that you've added the word "edition." That's not in the description. These relationships are between works.

I didn't use the word edition in what you're quoting, so I'm not sure of your point. Though if there are two works, Moby-Dick and Moby Dick: Norton Critical Edition, I'm not sure what would relate them other than a work-to-work relationship...

97rsterling
Feb 10, 2011, 9:58pm Top

On another note, I still think the phrase "Contained inside" is confusing. It's not clear what the subject and object are, so it could easily be misread, on the work page, as meaning "contents." It's especially confusing in cases where you don't also have a "Contains" section.

98brightcopy
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 10:03pm Top

97> I agree. I'd much prefer "Is contained in". (or something like that)

ETA: And perhaps before all the relationships, it could say "This work" in a larger font, with the relationships indented a little. Hmmm... mockup time maybe.

99brightcopy
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 10:15pm Top

98> Mockup:



ETA: Forgot some indenting. Updated.

100Heather19
Feb 10, 2011, 10:12pm Top

Some of this stuff goes over my head, and most of it is simply not stuff I'll ever actually use or contribute to... But YAAAAAAY! I love it!

101lilithcat
Feb 10, 2011, 10:14pm Top

> 94

I noticed that certain relationships can only go one way. For instance, it is possible to say that Work A "was inspired by" Work B, but it does not seem possible to say that Work B "was the inspiration for" Work A.

The "flip" wording for that is "Inspired." I'm not sure I agree with you on the one-way-ness of this.


Are you saying you don't think we should be able to say Work B inspired Work A? Because I don't see any way to do that. I can (and did) say that March was inspired by Little Women, but I don't see any way to say that Little Women inspired March.

102timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 10:26pm Top

The most obvious example is what you quote later in your post, an NCE, that contains a work plus essays and commentary and notes that do not themselves constitute a work or works but that are significant enough that under current practice warrant separation from the main work.

So, I have no opinion on the NCE issue. A straight up text and commentary should, I think, contain the text, if it was published separately.

There is no standalone second novel.

At present, this can't be helped. We're asking people not to create bogus works in order to use the feature fully.

Mockup

I think I'll avoid "this work" and restate the work title again. But good idea.

Because I don't see any way to do that. I can (and did) say that March was inspired by Little Women, but I don't see any way to say that Little Women inspired March.

I disagree. Indeed, I'm not sure we're speaking the same language. Was the Aeneid inspired by the Iliad? Yes. Did the Iliad inspire the Aeneid? Yes. Verb voices!

103brightcopy
Feb 10, 2011, 10:34pm Top

102> I disagree. Indeed, I'm not sure we're speaking the same language. Was the Aeneid inspired by the Iliad? Yes. Did the Iliad inspire the Aeneid? Yes. Verb voices!

I think perhaps what lilithcat refers to is that there is no option in the dropdown for "Inspired". Only for "Was inspired by". You can only set the relationships in one direction and then LT goes and makes the reverse linkage. So you can set that one thing "Contains" the other, but you can't actually set "Is contained by" in the interface.

104brightcopy
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 10:38pm Top

102> At present, this can't be helped. We're asking people not to create bogus works in order to use the feature fully.

I don't really understand this. I'm not asking to create a bogus work. I'm saying there are two works, one of which is not made up of multiple works but of another work + some new stuff. This is a parallel to an NCE, but yet isn't an NCE. Feel free to have no opinion on this one, too. :D

I think I'll avoid "this work" and restate the work title again. But good idea.

Yeah, I think that's the better way to go, too. Once I'd mocked it up it looked a bit awkward. I hope you also think about the indenting. When I'm reading down through the list, I find the flat level very easy to get lost in.

ETA: Also, perhaps change "indirect" to "indirectly". Then you have more of a real sentence someone can read:

The Lord of the Rings
Contains
The Ring Sets Out : Being the first book of The Lord of the Rings
(indirectly)

105timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 10:38pm Top

>103 brightcopy:

That's why the two works are reversed on the right side. If you want to say A was inspired by B, use the left. If you want to say B was inspired by A (ie., A inspired B), use the right.

Originally I showed the works in the same order, with reverse wording. But the situations are the same, and it's clearer when you change the works, not fiddle with wording.

106keristars
Feb 10, 2011, 10:38pm Top

103> So you can set that one thing "Contains" the other, but you can't actually set "Is contained by" in the interface.

I think that's why there are two panels. One has "Work A {relationship to} Work B" and the other is "Work B {relationship to} Work A". So each side only needs the relationships going in one direction, instead of having it doubled and lengthening the drop-down box.

107brightcopy
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 10:39pm Top

105> I'm not saying it doesn't work fine or should be changed, I'm just saying perhaps that's where the confusion lies. The user only make links in one direction, LT makes them in the reverse.

108timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 10:40pm Top

>104 brightcopy:

Okay. So, I have no problem with saying that a version that has both text and commentary includes the text (and is a commentary on it too).

I find the flat level very easy to get lost in.

That's why I'm gonna use a blink tag.

109brightcopy
Feb 10, 2011, 10:44pm Top

108> Okay. So, I have no problem with saying that a version that has both text and commentary includes the text (and is a commentary on it too).

But that doesn't address the Anne McCaffrey (?) example I gave, does it? That's two novels/novella in one omnibus, even though only one novel is ever published separately outside the omnibus.

That's why I'm gonna use a blink tag.

That's okay, I'll just time my blinks to coincide.

--
BTW, I added a bit to post 104 about "indirect". If missed it on your first refresh check it out.

110timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 10:46pm Top

>107 brightcopy:

I was thinking Lilithcat was making a point about how inspiration really works--that Little Women couldn't inspire March because Little Women wasn't around when March was written. Obviously, the influence goes only one direction, but I think English allows you to say it either way. Maybe I misunderstood her, though. I am confused.

observation

People are going nutso with contains-relationships, but not so much the other ones. So far, we have no other category more than 40. There are only 16 parodies, for example, and only 9 student's study guides--most of them my work, I think. I would think people would be leaping all over the CliffsNotes...

I'm not complaining. We're just over 6,000 relationships already. That's awesome. I'm just perplexed by what people are interested in.

111timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 10:47pm Top

For example, nobody had done National Lampoon's Doon yet!

112timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 10:49pm Top

But that doesn't address the Anne McCaffrey (?) example I gave, does it? That's two novels/novella in one omnibus, even though only one novel is ever published separately outside the omnibus.

Yeah, so I'd say that the omnibus includes novel #1. And then I'd put the information about the other one in the description or disambiguation. Eventually we will be creating bogus works for situations like this--or similarly "empty" data structures.

113brightcopy
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 10:51pm Top

110> I think omnibuses have been a problematic thing in LT for a while, and you're seeing activity related to that. I think it's a bit premature, since linking them up with contained relationships isn't going to fix any of the problems that are currently caused by having omnibuses. But it will be the first step to getting you to add stuff like this:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/109753#2512826

Or catalog views that show not just the books you have cataloged, but also the books they contain (handy for when you're out book shopping and don't have the internet in your pocket).

So I think it's the most useful relationship. The others are great, but they can't really be used as a tool like the container ones can.

112> Fair enough.

114elenchus
Feb 10, 2011, 10:55pm Top

This message has been deleted by its author.

115timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 10:55pm Top

>113 brightcopy:

I think the catalog is going to have some sort of switch, between just showing your books and showing their contents. In one view, you'd alphabetize by author and see together only the books you have with Steven King as their author. In another, you'd see all the short stories too. It might be useful to have a mode that "splits out" all novels, but keeps the short stories and so forth "in." We can jump over that bridge when we come to it.

116timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 10:56pm Top

It would appear now that the relationship would only be listed on the work page from which it was set.

Oh no, it's reciprocal.

117elenchus
Feb 10, 2011, 10:58pm Top

>116 timspalding:

This thread goes too fast: I'm missing too many new posts while reading and typing! So yeah, I see that now and won't be so hasty to post in future.

118lilithcat
Feb 10, 2011, 11:00pm Top

This message has been deleted by its author.

119timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 11:06pm Top

Rereading lilithcat, it seems to me she was making a features point, not a point about how influence works. You satisfied now, lilithcat? Would you prefer I kept the order of works on the right but reversed the wording. Seems more... fiddly.

120elenchus
Feb 10, 2011, 11:10pm Top

Can a given work be inspired by more than one work?

My test case is Jeff Noon's Automated Alice, which I'd argue is inspired by both of Lewis Carroll's original Alice books. I first made the link to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, closed the window, then made the link to Through the Looking-Glass, and after closing the window only see the second link. So, I thought I'd re-establish the relationship to Wonderland if only one were allowed, and saw the green check marks beside both works when setting the relationship.

So I left it as-is, but the Work-to-work relationship module only lists Looking-Glass. Is it a caching issue? Am I missing something?

121lilithcat
Feb 10, 2011, 11:11pm Top

> 110

No, I meant what brightcopy said, that the system doesn't allow me to make the link from inspiration to inspired, just from inspired to inspiration.* You seem to be assuming that everyone will start from the work that "was inspired by", but I think a lot of people will start with the work that was the inspiration, and wonder why they can't say that.

*And I did not realize that LT did that automatically. (Frankly, I wouldn't have expected it to. I would have thought it would work like recommendations, where you have to affirmatively say "I want this to work both ways.") The reverse linkage didn't appear on the page for Little Women, because the search results didn't differentiate among editions, and so the wrong one was selected. (I've gone back and chosen the right one now.)

122lilithcat
Feb 10, 2011, 11:15pm Top

> 120

Can a given work be inspired by more than one work?

I don't see why not! Case in point.

123timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 11:16pm Top

>120 elenchus:

It should be able to be. Try again?

We do have a problem with books inspired by LOTS of books. For example, Kiss the Girls and Make Them Spy is a parody of the entire bond corpus—and, I suspect, the movies too.

No, I meant what brightcopy said, that the system doesn't allow me to make the link from inspiration to inspired, just from inspired to inspiration.* You seem to be assuming that everyone will start from the work that "was inspired by", but I think a lot of people will start with the work that was the inspiration, and wonder why they can't say that.

Okay, look at the interface again. It has two panes. The right pane is the flip of the left pane. You can do it from either work.

124timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 11:17pm Top

So, edge case: What the heck are we calling Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?

125elenchus
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 11:23pm Top

Re: my 120 above, clearly I should be able to establish multiple "inspired by" relationships, I just haven't figured out how to do it.

I tried with another book (Gorey & Donnelly's Three Classic Children's Stories), this time indicating it was a retelling of three separate works. Also, this time I defined the 3 relationships without closing the window between the three works. Still no-go: only the last-established link shows in the module.

What am I doing wrong?

126elenchus
Feb 10, 2011, 11:23pm Top

127timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 11:26pm Top

Yeah, I know that's what they're calling it, but a mashup is a many-to-one relationship—a mashup of blues and rap, a mashup of Yahoo Maps and National STD statistics, etc. What is Austen being mashed up WITH?

What am I doing wrong?

Is it possible you aren't clicking the work?

Anyone have any idea here?

128elenchus
Feb 10, 2011, 11:30pm Top

>127 timspalding: The history shows I've set multiple sets of "retelling of" relationships, to different works. (It also shows my boneheaded move of first categorising it as "inspired by", and then removing it.)

So I'm able to make single relationships, I simply can't make them additive. I'll leave it for a bit and come back later, I'm overlooking something simple.

129brightcopy
Feb 10, 2011, 11:31pm Top

127> Austen being mashed up WITH?

Zombies. DUH.

Seriously, though, I'd say P&P&Z is inspired by P&P. I would also say it's a parody of P&P. I haven't read P&P&Z so I don't know if they have specific homages/references to other zombie books. If so, then it might also be inspired by those works.

Of course, it's probably inspired by a few movies, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms. And there's already enough worms, what with the zombies.

130JGKC
Feb 10, 2011, 11:33pm Top

@ 124

It's already been listed as a retelling, and that seems right to me. But what should the relationship be between 'Pride and Prejudice and Zombies' and 'Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters?'

Also, one of the relationships is listed as "is a study or guide to" but shouldn't it be "is a study OF or guide to?"

131timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 11:34pm Top

Someone said "retelling." That's also fine, I guess. Still, it's hard.

One thing I dislike is "parody" used merely as a way to trigger Fair Use under copyright. Wind Done Gone was not a "parody" of Gone with the Wind. It was a subversion of it, a commentary on it and etc.--probably deserving of fair use protection for that--but it wasn't a "parody."

132elenchus
Feb 10, 2011, 11:34pm Top

And I think Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and others of that ilk are similar to your comment about fairy tales: there's no original zombie work, they're all retellings / inspirations / parodies.

Maybe best handled by simply finding your favourite exemplar for each relevant relationship, and consider them heuristic rather than definitive relationship(s).

133timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 11:35pm Top

But what should the relationship be between 'Pride and Prejudice and Zombies' and 'Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters?'

Concordance? Wait, time to go to bed.

134timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 11:35pm Top

Speaking of concordances, that relationship has been used... drum-roll... zero times!

135timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 11:39pm Top

Jesus, someone needs to do Dracula! I just added Dracula The Un-Dead by Dacre Stoker. The best way to find them is to click on the characters, I think.

136lilithcat
Feb 10, 2011, 11:41pm Top

> 123
Okay, look at the interface again. It has two panes. The right pane is the flip of the left pane. You can do it from either work.

No, you're still not getting it.

I want to say that Homer's Odyssey inspired Nikos Kazantzakis's The Odyssey: A Modern Sequel. If I go to the work page for the former, and go to "Set Work-to-Work Relationships", there is no option in either pane for "inspired", only for "was inspired by".

I can go to the page for Kazantzakis' work, set the relationship as "was inspired by", and then the reverse linkage will show on the page for Homer's work. But I can't do it the other way around.

137brightcopy
Feb 10, 2011, 11:42pm Top

131> It was a subversion of it, a commentary on it and etc.--probably deserving of fair use protection for that--but it wasn't a "parody."

I think your definition of "parody" is a little too restrictive, then. Lots of similar examples here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody#Reputation

138jjwilson61
Feb 10, 2011, 11:43pm Top

94> What exactly is the alternative? I'm confused.

I was responding to this statement in post #71, Another problem with "expanded edition": nonfiction texts are fairly frequently republished with additional material, but no change to the original material. In cases like this I would say the expanded edition simply contains the original edition.

I was thinking that in the case of a new edition of a textbook that adds a new chapter that the Contained relationship shouldn't be used to relate the two since it's a fundamentally different kind of relationship than an omnibus and it's contents.

139timspalding
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 11:46pm Top

I can go to the page for Kazantzakis' work, set the relationship as "was inspired by", and then the reverse linkage will show on the page for Homer's work. But I can't do it the other way around.

There's no option for "was inspired by" because the works are reversed on the right:

LEFT SIDE
A
(options)
B

RIGHT SIDE
B
(options)
A

I was thinking that in the case of a new edition of a textbook that adds a new chapter that the Contained relationship shouldn't be used to relate the two since it's a fundamentally different kind of relationship than an omnibus and it's contents.

It shouldn't be used between the two because THERE SHOULDN'T BE TWO! They are the same work. They may have slightly different contents, but they are the same work. Their contents cannot be dealt with under the current system.

140brightcopy
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 11:47pm Top

136> Go to Odyssey. Click Add/edit relationship. enter "The Odyssey: A Modern Sequel" and hit search. Pick the title. In the right pane, notice that The Odyssey: A Modern Sequel is on top, The Odyssey by Home is on bottom. Choose "Was Inspired by" in the box on the right pane.

You have just made the linkage from Homer's The Odyssey page to The Odyssey: A Modern Sequel without having to start at The Odyssey: A Modern Sequel.

Does that make sense? You don't ever have to go to Kazantzakis' work.

ETA: Redunded!

141brightcopy
Feb 10, 2011, 11:49pm Top

139> I think perhaps the interface IS a little confusing. I see how lilithcat might miss that. It looks like you're doing ONE thing by using both sides, but you're really choosing to do either one or the other. I'm not sure how to make it less confusing from a UI point of view, yet. I can think of some changes, but they also make it more time consuming. For example, you could have it only be one pane, but have the user select the first work from either the original work or the work they just looked up. Then the second work automatically gets the other one. Then they choose how they relate. Only one submit button.

142timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 11:51pm Top

I could add a little "or" in the middle and put them in light gray boxes. Or I could go to sleep.

143brightcopy
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 11:57pm Top

142> I recommend sleep.

Here's a mockup, but mainly just to present other alternatives like I said in 141. I'm not actually specifically suggesting this. Just trying to brainstorm.



The title below the "contains" select would automatically change when you chose the other radio button.

144lilithcat
Feb 11, 2011, 12:03am Top

> 140

No, that does not make any sense at all.

Where is the option for me to say that the Odyssey inspired A Modern Sequel? It does not exist!

145prosfilaes
Feb 11, 2011, 12:04am Top

110: Parodies are unclear though. There's ten thousand Sherlock Holmes parodies, but it's hard to point to any single book that they're a parody of.

146lilithcat
Feb 11, 2011, 12:04am Top

> 141

I'm not sure how to make it less confusing from a UI point of view, yet.

It's really very simple. Add inspired as an additional option.

Jeez.

147Heather19
Feb 11, 2011, 12:14am Top

Okay, question:

The Obedient Alice (and the other two books in that series) is a... parody? erotic-retelling? whatever... of Alice in Wonderland. What would I label it as? I'm leaning towards parody, but I really have no clue.

148timspalding
Edited: Feb 11, 2011, 12:18am Top

Where is the option for me to say that the Odyssey inspired A Modern Sequel?

It's right there. I'm not sure what more we can ask but that you look at the interface again.

Basically the interface has (1) "I bit the dog," or (2) "The dog bit me," and you are insisting that you want a way to say that "I was bitten by the dog."

There's ten thousand Sherlock Holmes parodies, but it's hard to point to any single book that they're a parody of.

Right.

I'm leaning towards parody, but I really have no clue.

Inspired by? Maybe we should have "aroused by"...

149lampbane
Feb 11, 2011, 12:21am Top

So, going through my library, and I got to Batman: No Man's Land, which is an adaptation of the entire storyline, spread across 5 trade paperbacks. So I inputted all five as "adaptation of" but only volume 5 is showing on the work page, though is it reciprocated on the work pages for each individual volume. So it's in the system, just not showing.

Thought I'd mention it.

150SilentInAWay
Edited: Feb 11, 2011, 12:27am Top

146>

You call up Homer's Odyssey, invoke relationships, search for Kazantzakis's book.

On the left side of the dialog you can specify that the H was inspired by the K (wrong)

On the right side of the dialog you can specify that the K was inspired by the H (correct)

So, rather than look for "inspired" on the left, you can use "was inspired by" on the right (where the works are reversed)

Make sense?

151timspalding
Feb 11, 2011, 12:25am Top

152timspalding
Feb 11, 2011, 12:26am Top

So it's in the system, just not showing.

Okay, that's a bug. Looking at it.

153SilentInAWay
Feb 11, 2011, 12:30am Top

>151 timspalding:

This is what it would look like if you started on the work page for the Kazantzakis, right?

154SilentInAWay
Feb 11, 2011, 12:31am Top

Also, I like the frames around the two options -- much more clear.

155prosfilaes
Feb 11, 2011, 12:33am Top

#58 is still an active bug, too.

156timspalding
Feb 11, 2011, 12:35am Top

So it's in the system, just not showing.

Fixed. Thanks.

157saltmanz
Feb 11, 2011, 12:39am Top

@51: What about just putting a big, bold OR in between the two halves of the interface?

158timspalding
Feb 11, 2011, 12:40am Top

#58 is still an active bug, too.

Did you separate works?

159timspalding
Feb 11, 2011, 12:56am Top

I've added a vertical line between the two sides.

160lampbane
Feb 11, 2011, 12:58am Top

>>156 timspalding:

Thanks for fixing it. So is there any way to specify what order the works appear in? Volume 5 is listed before 4.

It's particularly troublesome with Train Man, where the novel was adapted into 3 different manga series, 2 of which have 3 volumes apiece, for a total of 7 works. Right now the singleton is appearing in the middle of one of the others, which just makes it look bad. (And yes, I did enter them in the right order, just in case.)

161timspalding
Feb 11, 2011, 1:00am Top

Thanks for fixing it. So is there any way to specify what order the works appear in? Volume 5 is listed before 4.

A tough one. It's sorted by number of copies. The idea is to show the importance stuff above the fold, and the trivia hidden without a click. So, if someone says their vampire novel was "inspired" by Dracula, it won't be in first place.

I'm open to ideas, but that's my thinking.

162prosfilaes
Edited: Feb 11, 2011, 1:04am Top

#158: No; that's been stable as far as I know for a long time.

Edit: And right now adding a relation redirects me to a blank page at the URL: http://www.librarything.com/work/3534/book/relationship_search_confirm.php

163brightcopy
Feb 11, 2011, 1:09am Top

144> Does any of the above help? It's hard to tell if you're not understanding how Tim has programmed it, or if you just disagree and want it to present BOTH options in the list. The problem is that the list would get looooong with both directions being presented.

164lampbane
Edited: Feb 11, 2011, 1:10am Top

>134 timspalding:

Concordance has been used zero times? I think I found a possible culprit - I tried to add The Vampire Companion as a concordance to Interview with the Vampire and got... nothing. The browser screen whited out/doesn't load when I tried to confirm the relationship. Did the same for The Witches Companion and The Witching Hour.

EDIT: It's working now.

165timspalding
Feb 11, 2011, 1:11am Top

Fixed. Apologies.

166justjim
Feb 11, 2011, 1:47am Top

Can I get a definition of 'concordance' as compared to 'supplement' please?

I was thinking of The Rivan Codex and its relation to the Belgariad and Malloreon series by David (and/or Leigh) Eddings, and I'm not sure which is more appropriate.

168andejons
Feb 11, 2011, 3:26am Top

Nice feature! Will keep me busy for a long time...

One relation that I just ran into and didn't quite know what to do with was a book by the latest Swedish translator of Lord of the Rings; it's basically his thoughts on the translation process. I entered it as "Is a commentary on the text of", but well, the "on the text of" made me pause. Is there a reason why it's not just "is a commentary on"?

And I do hope there will be a way to enter relations which only is relevant to parts of works; I don't want to enter relations for short essay collections when it is only one of the essays that's a commentary on another text.

169thorold
Feb 11, 2011, 4:37am Top

Any thoughts on how to treat "In the footsteps of..." books - things like The Quest for Kim and Travels with a Tangerine? "Commentary" or "Study or Guide to" is probably misleading for what are usually basically travel books, but "inspired by" seems a bit weak.

170andyl
Feb 11, 2011, 4:54am Top

#122

Is Dracula Meets Frankenstein inspired by Dracula and Frankenstein (the books)? Or does it merely feature the main characters of the previous books? Or was the author inspired by film versions of Drac and Frankie?

If second-hand inspiration is OK, where do you stop before the inspiration link to the original work is too watered down to be tasty (useful)?

For me inspired is a much stronger test than merely using the same characters. One could also say that most of the non-ACD Sherlock Holmes stories have been inspired by the ACD Holmes books - but again that seems to be a bit weak. They aren't inspired by the stories as stories, but by the character, which they include in their work. That connection is already tracked in CK.

But I do believe that there are some books inspired by more than one book - just that your example proves that it may get tricky at the edges when it comes to saying whether a work is inspired by another work.

171Nicole_VanK
Feb 11, 2011, 5:20am Top

Okay, so I would wan't to say that "Alice" by Lela Dowling (http://www.librarything.com/work/9032024) is a (comic book) adaptation of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland". That direction would work.

But what to put in for the relation the other way? There's no such thing as A "inspired" B in the list. And saying that the original Alice "contains" the comic book version seems so wrong.

172Jannes
Edited: Feb 11, 2011, 6:05am Top

171 > You don't have to put in anything "the other way": That is done automatically, in accordance with what you entered for the first work.

A
Is an adaption of
B

Will automatically generate

B
Has the adaptation
A

173anglemark
Feb 11, 2011, 6:42am Top

It seems to be shaky when faced with works contained within works.

I got stuck on Lynne Reid Banks's "Indian books"

I defined that The Indian Trilogy contains The Indian in the Cupboard, The Return of the Indian, and The Secret of the Indian, but when I went to The Indian Quartet - http://www.librarything.com/work/2323035 (touchstone fails), it gets all confused and thinks non-existing relationships exist.

I see that the Hitchhiker's books have the corresponding relationships correctly defined, though. Hmm.

174MaidMeri
Feb 11, 2011, 6:53am Top

>173 anglemark: Sounds like the same problem I ran into, I filed a bug report here.

175bell7
Edited: Feb 11, 2011, 8:24am Top

I was trying to add a "contains" relationship for an omnibus of 3 Jane Austen novels - I could only input Pride and Prejudice, but when I went to add Mansfield Park and Persuasion, the system has already checked those off even though the works aren't showing up on either the novels or the omnibus work page. I saw above that this was a bug, but did it get fixed? :) (ETA: Found the same issue with The Original Illustrated Sherlock Holmes - only the relationship to The Hound of the Baskervilles is showing up)

Re: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, "inspired by" sounds fine to me. I changed it from "Contains" Pride and Prejudice, because it clearly doesn't have every word from the book and changes quite a bit of the dialogue.

Oh, and thanks for this feature. I can see myself having quite a bit of fun with this in my free time. :)

176Musereader
Feb 11, 2011, 8:40am Top

#96 , Brightcopy, The Mccaffrey example is a bad one because Nerika's Story and the Coleura have been published seperatly, the relationship has already been made.

For the omnibuses (contained in/by) being done first, I know i'm doing them because they are the easiest ones for me to define and find. I already have an omnibus tag so did them all last night (excepting a few with complications) but for the rest, expansions, parodies inspires etc I have to look at my books, think, and research before I can work on them. I need to go read introductions and prefaces, where they've mentioned inspirations and rewrites etc

177DaynaRT
Feb 11, 2011, 8:40am Top

Is there a wikithing page with definitions and examples of all the relationship terms?

178andyl
Feb 11, 2011, 8:45am Top

Possible BUG!

Can you look at http://www.librarything.com/work/188002 (Odd John And Sirus).
When I click "Same Author" I just get one work (and that isn't the work I am currently working on) and the author name shows incorrectly?

Is this a bit like the Douglas Noel Adams issue?

179Aerrin99
Edited: Feb 11, 2011, 8:56am Top

One problem I'm running into is similar to the 'it was inspired by/parodies a whole heap of books', which is that I'm looking at adding The Dragonlover's Guide to Pern and The Vorkosigan Companion to the appropriate places.

The problem is that there are companions to very large series of books - should I really go through and list every one of them?

I don't know if this suggestion would work, but what I wished for here was a way to make a book to /series/ link - to say that these books are companions to this series. I realize you can get at this data through the series CK link itself, but I think that in this particular case it's a bit obscured.

I'm especially in favor of this if it's doable because I think this would also solve that 'is inspired by' and 'is a parody of' problem - your spy parody could be a parody of the entire James Bond series.

I don't know whether this would make things too complicated and/or confusing, but in terms of brainstorming, I thought it was worth bringing up!

ETA: I notice in brightcopy's mock-up earlier that several LotR companions are linked to the LotR omnibus - but the individual book pages are /not/ linked, despite the fact that the companions are no less guides to those individual pieces! This is another example of where this might be handy.

180_Zoe_
Edited: Feb 11, 2011, 9:08am Top

I've suggested this in the past with no success, but I really think this is the sort of discussion that would benefit from being re-started, with a summary of what's been resolved and what outstanding questions remain. There were 90 new messages overnight, and that number will grow even more by the time I have a chance to really read over the thread, possibly at lunch but more likely in the evening. By that time many of the issues will likely have been decided and I'll be largely wasting my time, so there's a good chance that I'll just ignore the discussion from now on. And I'm someone who's on LT fairly regularly; casual users must feel entirely excluded from these conversations.

(ETA: Okay, so I skimmed through it and am now vaguely up-to-date. But it still feels wrong and unwelcoming to people who aren't hardcore Talk readers.)

181Jannes
Feb 11, 2011, 9:16am Top

ETA: I notice in brightcopy's mock-up earlier that several LotR companions are linked to the LotR omnibus - but the individual book pages are /not/ linked, despite the fact that the companions are no less guides to those individual pieces! This is another example of where this might be handy.

this is the sort of thing that coud probably be resolved with indirect relationships: If the omibus is part of a relationship, then reasonably so would all works contained within it. Assuming there is an omnibus, of course...

Maybe series should be searchable as to provide a shortcut to adding batch relationships?

182Aerrin99
Feb 11, 2011, 9:28am Top

> 181 Maybe series should be searchable as to provide a shortcut to adding batch relationships?

That's not a bad idea, if relationships to series themselves is not desired or too complicated.

Basically anything that'd let me add companions without needing to do 40 books individually. I'm patient, but I dunno that I'm /that/ patient! ;)

183lilithcat
Feb 11, 2011, 9:41am Top

Make sense?

No. I understand what you are saying, but it does not make sense, it is not intuitive, and it is not obvious that saying K was inspired by H will generate the opposite linkage.

184lilithcat
Feb 11, 2011, 9:42am Top

> 151

See my response to #150.

185jbd1
Feb 11, 2011, 9:49am Top

>183 lilithcat: - is it only the "inspired by" relationship that doesn't make sense to you? I'm confused. They all work the same way:

... if you designate A as contained in B, B's page says "B contains A" and A's page says "A is contained in B"

... if you designate A as inspired by B, B's page says "B inspired A" and A's page says "A is inspired by B"

186lilithcat
Edited: Feb 11, 2011, 10:21am Top

> 185

I hadn't used the contains one, but if I had tried to say B contains A, and that were not an option, yes, I would be confused by that, too.

Okay, a suggestion: assuming that selecting any relationship automatically creates the reverse linkage, why not say so? Put that information in the box.

187lorax
Edited: Feb 11, 2011, 10:19am Top

183>

it is not obvious that saying K was inspired by H will generate the opposite linkage.

But it works that way for all relationships. There's not an option for "is contained in", either; if you want to say that A is contained in B, you need to say that B contains A. (Which you can do from either A's page or B's page.) Why is this more confusing for inspiration than containment?

ETA: Sorry, simultaneous post.

188jbd1
Edited: Feb 11, 2011, 10:20am Top

>186 lilithcat: - and the two panes (one for each "side" of the relationship) as Tim illustrated in #151 don't make sense? That's designed specifically to provide the option for entering either A->B or B->A

189lilithcat
Edited: Feb 11, 2011, 10:24am Top

> 188

No, it does not makes sense, because it is not clear that creating one relationship automatically generates the reverse.

It may be clear to you guys because you created it, but it is not clear to the casual user.

190lorax
Feb 11, 2011, 10:28am Top

189>

it is not clear that creating one relationship automatically generates the reverse.

Why not?

It took me a few seconds the first time I created one, but once I saw that "Contained in" wasn't an option, it was pretty obvious how it worked. Does it remain confusing after the initial disconnect?

191jjwilson61
Feb 11, 2011, 11:08am Top

190> It confused BarkingMatt too. It might not hurt to think about how something could be added to make it clear that both directions are being added. Perhaps some confirmation text after the link is added like:

A is inspired by B: Added
B inspired A: Added

192jjwilson61
Edited: Feb 11, 2011, 11:13am Top

179 et al>I'm really leery of adding a ton of parody-of links to each Star Trek book, for example, for every Star Trek parody. I think that for now we should limit the parody-of and inspired-by links to cases where it is really a single book that was the inspiration (come to think of it, a parody is a kind of inspiration, so we don't really need a parody-of link).

Tim, while you're thinking about adding the layers for publication-line and expression, could you think about moving the series information from CK into a layer of its own? That would solve this problem where an inspiration is based on not a single work but on something larger.

193timspalding
Feb 11, 2011, 11:16am Top

I defined that The Indian Trilogy contains The Indian in the Cupboard, The Return of the Indian, and The Secret of the Indian, but when I went to The Indian Quartet - http://www.librarything.com/work/2323035 (touchstone fails), it gets all confused and thinks non-existing relationships exist.

This problem—expressed elsewhere here—has been fixed. As I wrote there: http://www.librarything.com/topic/109756#2514245
So, basically, it was preventing it whenever a work appeared in the collateral lines of contains/contained.

So, thinking of contains/contained as a family tree, it should only prevent you from making someone your son if they are already your son, grandson, father, grandfather, etc. It was preventing you when they were your uncle, nephew, etc.

The trick is that it should prevent you whenever you create a circularity. The way it is now, I could contain my nephew, and my uncle could contain my son. This causes potential problems. I need to think about how to prevent that, perhaps with some coffee. So, tread carefully.


Is there a wikithing page with definitions and examples of all the relationship terms?

No. Jeremy can you start one. Others please chime in with good examples and then maybe a section for edge cases?

No, it does not makes sense, because it is not clear that creating one relationship automatically generates the reverse.

There's no real arguing clarity, except for polling people. I think most people here find it clear. We could put it in tiny gray text, if you wanted, along with the other info.

A is inspired by B: Added
B inspired A: Added


I'd rather not say two linkages were created. In fact, only one was. I just gave birth. I now have a child. One linkage is created. That linkage is two-way.

194timspalding
Feb 11, 2011, 11:19am Top

Tim, while you're thinking about adding the layers for publication-line and expression, could you think about moving the series information from CK into a layer of its own? That would solve this problem where an inspiration is based on not a single work but on something larger.

I see the CK relationships as "attribute" relationships. That is, a book belongs to its series--often--in a weaker way than a chapter belongs to a book. I am in my house, but I am not in 5'10" height-ness.

That said, it should be possible to make relationship between works and series.

195Suncat
Feb 11, 2011, 11:20am Top

> 193

I'd argue that it wasn't you who gave birth. ^_^

196SilentInAWay
Feb 11, 2011, 11:25am Top

> 195

I'd argue that, as a software developer, he definitely gives birth.

197timspalding
Feb 11, 2011, 11:29am Top

Jeremy is going to do a "reboot" thread, restating the big issues and adding a new principle--expressed when you go about doing it, but not in my list at top—namely that you can only create relationships if they apply to EVERY edition within the work. This is not a way to list the contents of your edition. It is a way to state inarguable relationships between works. The Lord of the Rings ALWAYS contains the Fellowship of the Ring. "The dialogues of Plato" includes a mess of different editions, the contents of which we don't actually know.

198Suncat
Feb 11, 2011, 11:37am Top

> 196

As a software developer myself, I agree with you. I was mistaken in which child he was referring to.

199timspalding
Feb 11, 2011, 11:42am Top

Wait, are you making gender assumptions?

200jbd1
Feb 11, 2011, 11:50am Top

I've started a HelpThing page for this, and will begin populating it. If anybody wants to jump in with either edge cases or examples, please feel free.

201paradoxosalpha
Feb 11, 2011, 12:02pm Top

I don't understand the distinction between "is a retelling of" and "is an adaptation of."

202timspalding
Feb 11, 2011, 12:11pm Top

See Jeremy's developing page.

I think The Diary of Anne Frank is an adaptation (a play) of The Diary of a Young Girl.

The Wind Done Gone is a retelling of Gone with the Wind.

203DaynaRT
Feb 11, 2011, 12:33pm Top

>202 timspalding:
Those are very good examples. I'll add them to the Help page.

204timspalding
Feb 11, 2011, 12:34pm Top

Thanks. Yeah, Jeremy could use some help on that.

205elenchus
Feb 11, 2011, 12:39pm Top

>120 elenchus:, 123, 156

Tim, apparently my problems last night with the many-to-one inspired by & retelling relationships were related to the bug reported by lampbane, and which you fixed. In any case, they now appear and I didn't change anything since last night.

Unless, of course, someone else went in behind me and did it correctly.

206anglemark
Feb 11, 2011, 12:40pm Top

West Side Story is an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet and Lamb's Tales from Shakespeare are retellings, right?

207timspalding
Feb 11, 2011, 12:42pm Top

Interesting. I see West Side Story as inspired by, with "adaptation" more of a simple transfer.

But who knows! I think we're going to have to live with extra relationships.

208TomVeal
Feb 11, 2011, 12:45pm Top

I'd like to second the suggestion in #92. There should be a way to show that a work includes an excerpt from (or is excerpted in) another work.

209elenchus
Feb 11, 2011, 12:48pm Top

> 206, 207

The current verbiage on the Help page supports Tim's idea. Adaptation as a shift in literary format or audience, retelling as a shift in viewpoint. But I'm not worried about people using them in different ways, as long as they all can be listed.

210jbd1
Feb 11, 2011, 12:52pm Top

Yeah, well, I'm making up the text on the help page as I go along. Feel free to critique/suggest changes!

211_Zoe_
Feb 11, 2011, 12:56pm Top

I'd recommend splitting of discussion of the help page text into a separate thread.

212jbd1
Feb 11, 2011, 12:59pm Top

Yes, fine. Done. Come discuss the help page for this.

213SilentInAWay
Feb 11, 2011, 1:05pm Top

199> Wait, are you making gender assumptions?

Absolutely not, Tim.

Although, as a software developer, you may receive fertilization from a variety of sources, you may also be hermaphroditic (and completely self-fertilizing).

I refuse to speculate on your idiosyncratic mode(s) of conception.

214bragan
Edited: Feb 11, 2011, 1:26pm Top

I'm a little fuzzy on what constitutes "inspired by" vs. "a retelling of," although the wiki page has helped me firm it up a little. I think. Let me see if I have this correct. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead would qualify as a retelling of Hamlet, as it presents the original story from the perspective of two minor characters (sort of), but The Story of Edgar Sawtelle, which uses the same basic plot structure but is set in a different time and place, with some of the characters recast as dogs, should be counted as "inspired by" Hamlet. Is that right? Because I think I started out with precisely the opposite definitions in my mind.

(ETA: And I should have refreshed this thread before I started typing, as I see this was kinda-sorta addressed above, but, hey, I could still use the reassurance.)

215jbd1
Feb 11, 2011, 1:25pm Top

bragan, I think that's it precisely. Does that make sense to others, too?

216lilithcat
Feb 11, 2011, 1:27pm Top

> 209

Adaptation as a shift in literary format or audience, retelling as a shift in viewpoint.

And why couldn't West Side Story be both an adaptation and a retelling?

217timspalding
Feb 11, 2011, 1:54pm Top

>216 lilithcat:

I think it could. We should, I think, err on the side of more, useful information, not less.

218SilentInAWay
Feb 11, 2011, 2:19pm Top

217>

Do you mean that members should establish the most "informative" relationship, or that the relationships feature should be extended to permit more information (e.g., multiple relationships between books)?

219brightcopy
Feb 11, 2011, 2:20pm Top

lilithcat> This may be a dead horse at this point, but if you favor adding "Inspired", would you favor it REPLACING "Was inspired by", or would you want them both? Would you want the same for all the options? So add "Is contained by", "Is retold in", etc.? I'm just curious if this one is an oddball for you and you just don't like the direction that is picked, or if it's a more general complaint about not having both directions for every relationship in the dropdown.

220jbd1
Edited: Feb 11, 2011, 2:28pm Top

Members already can enter multiple relationships between works. What I think Tim's saying is, it's fine to have Work B as both an adaptation and a retelling of Work A, or an adaptation and inspired by, &c.

221SilentInAWay
Feb 11, 2011, 2:26pm Top

Oops, I should have tried this before I asked. Thanks, Jeremy.

222jbd1
Feb 11, 2011, 2:28pm Top

No worries! (I had to back and make sure it was still true :-)

223prosfilaes
Feb 11, 2011, 2:31pm Top

#197: "The dialogues of Plato" includes a mess of different editions, the contents of which we don't actually know.

But we should, shouldn't we? If there's not a single dialogue that we can say belongs to all of them, then it's not a proper work. If there's a disambiguation notice, and a proper attempt to make the work match that notice, then we know what works should be contained in this work.

224lampbane
Edited: Feb 11, 2011, 2:40pm Top

Because it came up on the help thread, I thought I should bring it back here.

How strict are we on the definition of "concordance"?

I know the dictionary definition is of something that lists all the words in a work, with citations of where they are used.

However, I used it to cover two encyclopedic works, which list all the important words (people, places, objects) with *what* they are and where they are used.

I could see why these don't belong in "concordance" because of that extra information, but I don't feel they entirely belong in "guide" either. Guides come in different formats, and an encyclopedia format is much more dry than a study guide would be. Someone looking for a book to study a work with might not be interested in an encyclopedia that simply defines terms, while a person looking for an index might not be interested in explanations of meaning and context.

I feel like either the definition of concordance could be loosened, or we should change the terminology ("encyclopedia or concordance to") or we could add a new category.

225jbd1
Feb 11, 2011, 2:35pm Top

lampbane: "companion to"?

226lilithcat
Feb 11, 2011, 3:43pm Top

> 219

It's a more general complaint about the fact that relationships appear to go only one way. It simply is not clear that selecting a relationship automatically creates the reverse one.

As I said above, I think this could be easily solved by including that information in the box.

227jbd1
Feb 11, 2011, 3:51pm Top

>226 lilithcat: - I have added it in the principles on the Help page (which I think will be linked in the lightbox), and if I ever actually can catch my breath long enough to "reset" this thread, I'll put it prominently there too :-)

228lorax
Feb 11, 2011, 4:01pm Top

Okay, this is more of a philosophical question.

I have A Sea of Words, which is a companion to Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey & Maturin series, all twenty books of it. I can think of a few ways to indicate this, none of which is really very good.

1. Create the relationship for all twenty books. It will then show up for all of them, but the page for A Sea of Words will be horribly crowded.

2. Create it only for the first book in the series. This means it won't show up for the later books, but anyone who has later books is likely to have the first as well.

3. Create it for the omnibus entry. Simple and correct, but most people don't have the omnibus edition, and thus won't see it. (The relationship between the individual books and the omnibus entry have already been created.)

I'm tempted to go for #2 as the least bad option; any other ideas?

229_Zoe_
Feb 11, 2011, 4:07pm Top

>228 lorax: I had that same problem for the Sisters Grimm series. I ended up saying that the first three were inspired by The Complete Grimm's Fairy Tales, to avoid overwhelming the work page while addressing the fact that some people might not have the first one.

Ultimately, I think same-series relationships should be suppressed like they are for recommendations. Then the relationship could be entered for all books without making a mess of the work page.

230brightcopy
Feb 11, 2011, 4:12pm Top

226> Thanks for the reply. I think that's the way to go, too, but just wanted to see if I was misreading you.

231_Zoe_
Feb 11, 2011, 4:26pm Top

I think the relationships section should be organized differently (or possibly even split into multiple sections), so that new related works are grouped together. Retellings, non-series sequels/prequels, and inspirations seem to me to be similar to each other in a way that contained-in and abridgment relationships aren't. I can see myself paying particular attention to the first group of relationships, while being inclined to minimize the box entirely if the second group is overwhelming.

232jbd1
Feb 11, 2011, 4:34pm Top

Okay - new thread, with updated lists of relationships, principles, &c.

233timspalding
Feb 11, 2011, 4:41pm Top

As I said above, I think this could be easily solved by including that information in the box.

Wording has been changed to:
"Connect only existing works; do not create works in order to connect to them. To qualify, the relationship must substantially involve both works in every case, not just some editions of the works. All relationships go both ways."


I have A Sea of Words, which is a companion to Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey & Maturin series ... I'm tempted to go for #2 as the least bad option; any other ideas?

Let's leave it off entirely, and make a work->series relationship soon.

I think the relationships section should be organized differently (or possibly even split into multiple sections), so that new related works are grouped together. Retellings, non-series sequels/prequels, and inspirations seem to me to be similar to each other in a way that contained-in and abridgment relationships aren't. I can see myself paying particular attention to the first group of relationships, while being inclined to minimize the box entirely if the second group is overwhelming.

Can you explain this again? Reorder them for me, if you like.

I'm inclined to keep everything together. But if we split them out, it should be into two groups--relationships that are about contains/contained, and the rest.

234timspalding
Feb 11, 2011, 4:43pm Top

Sorry. please reply to that in the new thread:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/109828

THIS TOPIC IS NOW OFFICIALLY CLOSED

THIS TOPIC IS NOW OFFICIALLY CLOSED

THIS TOPIC IS NOW OFFICIALLY CLOSED

THIS TOPIC IS NOW OFFICIALLY CLOSED

THIS TOPIC IS NOW OFFICIALLY CLOSED

THIS TOPIC IS NOW OFFICIALLY CLOSED

THIS TOPIC IS NOW OFFICIALLY CLOSED!

235_Zoe_
Feb 11, 2011, 4:53pm Top

But if we split them out, it should be into two groups--relationships that are about contains/contained, and the rest.

Yeah, this is basically what I mean.

Different works
(non-series) sequel to
(non-series) prequel to
retelling of
inspired by
parody of
reply to

Is a study of
Is a reference guide/companion to
Is a supplement to
Is a commentary on the text of
Is a concordance to

Is a student's study guide to
Is a teacher's guide to

Various forms of the same work
Contains/Contained in
Abridgement
Expansion
Adaptation of

236_Zoe_
Feb 11, 2011, 4:54pm Top

Nooo, I started posted before that warning and then got distracted! Will repost in the new thread.

237timspalding
Feb 11, 2011, 5:10pm Top

Sorry. please reply to that in the new thread:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/109828

THIS TOPIC IS NOW OFFICIALLY CLOSED

THIS TOPIC IS NOW OFFICIALLY CLOSED

THIS TOPIC IS NOW OFFICIALLY CLOSED

THIS TOPIC IS NOW OFFICIALLY CLOSED

THIS TOPIC IS NOW OFFICIALLY CLOSED

THIS TOPIC IS NOW OFFICIALLY CLOSED

THIS TOPIC IS NOW OFFICIALLY CLOSED, except to Zoe.

Group: New features

45,201 messages

This group does not accept members.

About

This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.

Touchstones

Works

Authors

About | Contact | Privacy/Terms | Help/FAQs | Blog | Store | APIs | TinyCat | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | Common Knowledge | 134,867,839 books! | Top bar: Always visible