wording for proper 'Disambiguation notice' for shared author urls
CharlasAsk LibraryThing
Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.
Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.
1gangleri
Hi!
Please take a look at the following author urls:
a) nationalspiritualass
b) deutschegesellschaft
c) muumlllerguttenbrunn which might be shared between
Müller-Guttenbrunn, Adam
Müller-Guttenbrunn, Alexandra
Müller-Guttenbrunn, Roderich
because of the conversion of 'ü' into 'uuml' at the author url.
At a) and c) I inserted a draft text: "Because of the LT 20 character author url limit this url may be shared between multiple authors. Please let the 'Canonical name' field empty."
I assume that native English speakers can provide a better text reflecting also releted issues:
1) Topic: 'canonical name' field - undefined, empty (deleted) issues
2) In some cases one could agree for pseudo 'canonical name's:
c) Müller-Guttenbrunn, ... (with or without comas)
b) Deutsche Gesellschaft ...
However the existence of a 'canonical name' does influence what is shown in catalogue etc. Probably it would be the best to let the field empty.
c) What should be discussed is
c1) it would be probably best not to combine individual author urls with ambiguous / shared author urls and
c2) they should be listed as relations; I wonder aboubt the text (included, shared etc.)
c3) 'backward relations'
continued:
d) Works which are using different versions of author urls depending from which data source they are imported should be combined at work level.
Because the syntax to achive this is neither included in the standard graphical interface nor disclosed I wounder if is the right place to do it here or just recommend the Combiners! group.
Best regards Reinhardt
Please take a look at the following author urls:
a) nationalspiritualass
b) deutschegesellschaft
c) muumlllerguttenbrunn which might be shared between
Müller-Guttenbrunn, Adam
Müller-Guttenbrunn, Alexandra
Müller-Guttenbrunn, Roderich
because of the conversion of 'ü' into 'uuml' at the author url.
At a) and c) I inserted a draft text: "Because of the LT 20 character author url limit this url may be shared between multiple authors. Please let the 'Canonical name' field empty."
I assume that native English speakers can provide a better text reflecting also releted issues:
1) Topic: 'canonical name' field - undefined, empty (deleted) issues
2) In some cases one could agree for pseudo 'canonical name's:
c) Müller-Guttenbrunn, ... (with or without comas)
b) Deutsche Gesellschaft ...
However the existence of a 'canonical name' does influence what is shown in catalogue etc. Probably it would be the best to let the field empty.
c) What should be discussed is
c1) it would be probably best not to combine individual author urls with ambiguous / shared author urls and
c2) they should be listed as relations; I wonder aboubt the text (included, shared etc.)
c3) 'backward relations'
continued:
d) Works which are using different versions of author urls depending from which data source they are imported should be combined at work level.
Because the syntax to achive this is neither included in the standard graphical interface nor disclosed I wounder if is the right place to do it here or just recommend the Combiners! group.
Best regards Reinhardt
2Noisy
I can see what you are trying to do with the use of the relations, but I don't think that is a good thing to do, because how will you remember to clean it up in the future?
Until Tim gets his finger out and provides us with a mechanism for identifying unique authors, we are stuck. I don't even think we should use work-arounds such as constructed canonical names, because they will be that much harder to disentangle in the future.
All we can do is complain and get angry: I've given up on being constructive.
Until Tim gets his finger out and provides us with a mechanism for identifying unique authors, we are stuck. I don't even think we should use work-arounds such as constructed canonical names, because they will be that much harder to disentangle in the future.
All we can do is complain and get angry: I've given up on being constructive.
