[open-bibliography] Proposed definition for /book/book

Owen Stephens owen at ostephens.com
Thu Jul 1 12:24:02 BST 2010

Thanks Tom,

Hi Owen.  The purpose of the exercise that Anne is driving is to fine
> tune the Freebase type descriptions to match the actual usage, not
> make substantive changes.  What you're seeing is reflective of the
> scheme that's in use today.
Thanks for clarifying - that's useful to know.

> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:12 AM, Owen Stephens <owen at ostephens.com> wrote:
> > I have to admit that I think the definition of 'book' given here is
> slightly
> > confusing as it takes a commonly used term and defines it as something
> > different.
> To some degree this is inevitable, because common usage is to use the
> term "book" to mean at least a couple of different things.  People use
> it to mean both the author's work as well the particular editor or
> copy in our library.  Another possible choice would be to avoid the
> use of the term altogether since it's potentially confusing, but I
> think it provides a useful anchor to help orient people.  They want
> information on "books" not "works" or "manifestations."
Agreed that book is not an unambiguous term even in daily usage, and also
agreed that most people find it helpful to think about 'books' and dropping
the term would be more confusing.

Probably my main concern is (as noted in my previous mail) that the first
part of the definition 'A book is a written work or a collection of written
works in book form.', is contradicted by other parts of the definition.

More information about the open-bibliography mailing list