Hi

I've used the new collection fields and have some queries and observations that have arisen out of this.

I don't know how the data are modelled but this is what I'm thinking at the moment.

To me, the base data entry should be the title, issue, volume, credits. Maybe language is in the base type too, depending on how translations are modelled. Collections would collect entries at this level.

Cover variations come next.

Then print runs, 2nd editions, different publishers etc

It doesn't make sense to me that a collection collects a specific variation, except for language of course. For example, I'm thinking of the collected Wytches volume. It collects issues 1 onwards but which issue 1 variant should be linked? Why should that decision even be necessary?

I appreciate this is very much steam of consciousness so apologies for that :)

To me, the base data entry should be the title, issue, volume, credits. Maybe language is in the base type too, depending on how translations are modelled. Collections would collect entries at this level.

This would assume a sort of abstract "story" datatype? Or would there be actual physical
comic books or issues that manifest this first level?

I agree it would be neat and in a way more correct for the collection purpose (as a collection collects the stories but not the issues themselves). But it also makes data entry a bit more complicated if you first have to enter the abstract base entry and then an actual manifestation of this?

Things do get tricky pretty fast when you add data types that don't have a physical representation. See master releases on Discogs, Films of Filmogs and Works on Bookogs. But worth discussing.

I'm thinking that this would be an abstract data type, but it seems to me that that is the version that is compiled into the compendia. I agree that data entry could become more complicated but not too much, for the submitter at least, because the unique-ness the back-end runs should be able to suggest a match.

Of course the work could always be punted off to the submitter as with the Master Releases in discogs, but I don't see the need for that. It's adding work with no real value to the submitter but it reduces a whole bunch of duplication later on.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.