This subject was briefly discussed in another Forum topic, but there was no clear resolution on the subject. I know that there is some confusion in the community, so this matter really needs to be resolved.

Personally, I feel it would be remiss to ignore the collected title as a Work credit and just credit the individual items within. The example I previously cited was Ray Bradbury, who produced many story collections that have titles probably better known than the stories they contain: e.g. The Golden Apples of the Sun, The Martian Chronicles, I Sing The Body Electric, etc.

Another example would be Nick Hornby's 31 Songs which contains 31 essays. IMO it would be ridiculous to credit the 31 essays as Works and ignore the main title.

The method I have adopted is to credit the title of the collection as a Work credit, and if the items that it contains can be verified then I have been adding these as Work credits as well.

The title of the collection is not a work contained in the collection imho.

I might add that in many cases the items contained within the collection are not always itemised in the submission, which makes it very difficult to list them individually.

Extrapolating data in these situations could lead to errors being introduced to the database.

I've added collections as a Work in some cases, though I think only in cases where the collection is by a single author, and the collection is an integral part of the author's bibliography.

My logic has been based on the question that if authors had a "Works" view, would it make sense to have the collection listed there?

I'm aware such logic might be a little subjective, but like I said in the other thread, I think in cases where an author publishes a (themed) book of short stories, essays, or poetry, it could be seen as both as a single literary work and a collection of shorter works. I'm not sure if there are any real arguments against creating works for both the collection and the content in those cases.

I have to admit that I can also see a logic in having multi-author anthologies on the editor/compiler's (still imaginary) Works view. But as I thought that might be more controversial, and would require further discussion, I've decided not to create any works for them for the time being.

I think both variants have their pros & cons.
But, as this is Bookogs and not Storyogs, I would add the collection as a work, so the variants of the book (translations, different titled editions etc) can be connected / identified. .

I think treating the collection as a work in addition to the works contained in it, is mixing things up and renders the whole thing unmanageable in the long run.
See
https://www.bookogs.com/book/326635-different-seasons

Why is Different Seasons a work contained in Different Seasons? The actual works contained in it are:
Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption
Apt Pupil
The Body
The Breathing Method
Each work links to all editions of Different Seasons it is contained in. So what is the additional entry for Different Seasons really needed for ?

On the other hand, those 4 works weren't single published before. The so called "collection" Different Seasons is a works of it's own, containing 4 "chapters" (closed to itself, i admit), each one symbolizing a season.
Let's say it provovatively: Different Seasons should be the only work credited, and single appearences of the stories are only excerpts of it.

But the individual works have been published individually and in different combinations since then. The collections that contain them are not even called "Different Seasons" (or translations thereof). Linking them all under that name would be wrong, as the contents and titles differ.

Another example
https://www.bookogs.com/book/365408-a-rabbit-omnibus

Works contained in it are
Rabbit, Run
Rabbit Redux
Rabbit Is Rich
All of them novels in their own right. Now should "A Rabbit Omnibus" be another work contained in that collection, just because other editions of it certainly exist ?

It is not mixing anything up: the original work is Different Seasons consisting of four novellas. I admit that there are some anomalies with the Swedish and Finnish editions which were published in 2 parts. I agree that crediting Different Seasons as a Work for the separate volumes is misleading.

These books aside, ignoring that there is a book titled Different Seasons and not crediting it as a Work on the submissions that contain the 4 novellas is just wrong.

Even Stephen King's official website lists it as a book: https://www.stephenking.com/library/story_collection/different_seasons.html

Now should "A Rabbit Omnibus" be another work contained in that collection

Yep, as it would have a unique ISBN.

What does having a unique ISBN to do with anything ? Do works have unique ISBNs ?
Of course Different Seasons is a book (appears under story collections btw). But that does not make it a "work". It's a collection of works (novellas). None of the novellas is called "Different Seasons". Nor did John Updike ever write a novel called "A Rabbit Omnibus".

Well maybe one of us has the definition of a Work credit wrong. I am basing my definition on the MR system used on Discogs. Not many bands recorded compilation albums, but that is the purpose of discussing this topic in a Forum.

I have had a few minutes to reflect on my previous comment. Maybe I have the concept of the Works credit totally wrong. I thought the primary function of the Works credit was to attribute all editions of the one book to a "master record".

I realise it has rapidly evolved into a means of tracking all the publications that a short story/essay/poem appears in (which I think is great), but is the Works credit not a means of collecting all editions of the one book?

Perhaps the MR system is not an adequate equivalent to this ? From the bookogs wiki:

For the purpose of Bookogs, a Work is the artistic creation (e.g. novel, short story, poem, play), while the book is the physical, printed manifestation of this Work.

The artistic creation is the written work. Bundling different written works together in a collection is a form of printed manifestation, giving rise to a book.

It could be me then. My training has been on Goodreads where the function of the "primary (or default) edition" is to collect all editions of a book, which is similar to the function of the MR on Discogs. If the only purpose of the Work credit is to collect an artistic creation then that is news to me as I thought this was something that had evolved from the primary function.

As I've said, my post was meant to be a little provacative and over the top.

I see the problems and confusion evolving from listing the whole item and the contents in the same category, but as the collection is a work of it's own, I think it's wrong to not credit it.

I'm not sure about omnibus editions of novels, personally, I would not define those as works in most cases.

Quote from the bookogs wiki:

"Much like Discogs and Filmogs, the master - in this case ‘Work’ page - serves to group together all individual editions of a book title."

In my opinion this is an issue without a staright Yes or No answer, as there is omnibus publications that I wouldn't list primarly as their own works such as for example
https://www.bookogs.com/book/418340-hercule-poirotin-johtolangat-viisi-kuulua-mysteeria-stylesin-tapaus-idan-pikajunan-arvoitus-kortit-poydalla-kuolema-niililla-esirippu
https://www.bookogs.com/book/417087-pelko-on-aseeni-ja-muita-jannitysromaaneja-pako-yli-jaavan-meren-loputon-yo-pelko-on-aseeni-kun-kello-lyo
https://www.bookogs.com/book/424060-northanger-abbey-persuasion-emma
As the two first most likely are compiled by the Finnish publisher I wouldn't consider them as individual works as such and the third is a compilation of three previously published Jane Austen Works and isn't as such an individual Work.
Collections of short Stories or publications of more than one novel or novella that has, for example been translated as a whole Work also to other languages I would consider both the short stories as well as the full release as Work like for example:
https://www.bookogs.com/book/196402-for-your-eyes-only
Where it was orginally released as short story colelction and therefore been translated as a whole Works to other languages also, but the short stories are Works of their own and should be listd as Works also as for some versions a all short stories haven't been re-published in later versions or an additional story has been added to later version like for example:
https://www.bookogs.com/work/405736-octopussy-and-the-living-daylights
which originally only included Octopussy and The Living Daylights, with subsequent editions also including The Property of a Lady and thenlater 007 in New York. With each short story having its own work you'd find out which edition included which stories.

To return to the omnibus versions I mentioned above if indeed there'd be more than one edition of for example 'Northanger Abbey, Persuasion, Emma' I would it see a problem with it having its own Works, where these would be collected. The Works feature in comparison to Discocs Master Release fuction has the benefit that a publication can belong to more than one Works entry (As a note, sometimes on Discogs it would be good if a release could belong to more than one Master Release)
Of course it might be a bit confusing but I don't see a problem that both the main collection and the short stories is a Work of they're own, just as long as the collection is an original release.
Later compiled compilations, i.e. omnibus publications, in my opinion shouldn't be forced or automatically created as Works unless there are a number of similar editions that there is a benfit in collecting into one Work.

Now the question is for example if all Finnish editions of
https://www.bookogs.com/book/418340-hercule-poirotin-johtolangat-viisi-kuulua-mysteeria-stylesin-tapaus-idan-pikajunan-arvoitus-kortit-poydalla-kuolema-niililla-esirippu
would be added to Bookogs, of which there is at least a 1980s first printing, the 1993 printing i submitted and a later 1990's printing, Should these then be added to one Work

On the other hand, those 4 works weren't single published before. The so called "collection" Different Seasons is a works of it's own, containing 4 "chapters" (closed to itself, i admit), each one symbolizing a season.

Yeah. As far as I can see, it was originally a single work that has been afterwards split.

The thing is that when the book contains a single work, the Works function collects both the book and the literary work automatically, which can be misleading.

By the way, even though Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles consists basically of short stories (some previously published in some form, some not), it's considered a fix-up novel, a novel created from short stories. There are plenty of them, including Stephen King's The Gunslinger, and Raymond Chandler's The Big Sleep, just the level of rework done depends on the novel. Treating The Martian Chronicles as a short story collection would be wrong.

Another issue are poetry books. Most of them are collections. How is not "A Child's Garden of Verses" by Robert Louis Stevenson a work? Or Baudelaire's "Les Fleurs du mal", Geoffrey Chaucer's "The Canterbury Tales", Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass", or Tolkien's "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil"? Are we going to split up The Poetic Edda too and not have an entry gathering all versions of it?

I'd like to hear some good arguments why they shouldn't be considered as works. That is something else than "but the guidelines". The function is still very new, and very little is set in stone.

I don't think we need to be so strict about this whole issue. I think that one solution would be to make a distinction between collections published at the direction of the author, and collections compiled by someone else.

Thanks to all for the considered replies.

It seems I have to qualify my comment about omnibus publications. To give an example of this in practice:

• an omnibus is submitted to the database and the OS records the ISBN in the Identifying Codes
• another edition of the omnibus is submitted with an identical ISBN, but different artwork
• these two editions qualify for a Work credit

To my mind this is similar to the outcome of the discussion we had regarding whether or not a periodical is to be assigned a Work credit: only if there are multiple editions of the one issue.

In hindsight Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles was a poor example, but he did publish umpteen other collections that did not follow that loosely woven together format: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Bradbury_bibliography#Collections

The two Ian Fleming James Bond short story collections cited by brand0 are a very good example. To ignore the collected titles as Work credits would be ridiculous in the extreme. Similarly, this applies to Chaucer's "The Canterbury Tales", and Whitman's "Leaves of Grass" (I can't comment on the other examples because I haven't read them).

I iterate that I'm not suggesting that we ignore the individual items contained within the collection. As far as I am concerned both the collected title and the items contained within have an equal place in the database as Work credits.

Sorry, I still don't see how collections of novels or short stories can be considered "works". Or what the purpose of this would be.

The collected novels of author A, issued as one book, contain the works of that author. If the same book is reissued, whether with the same ISBN or a different one, it is still a collection of those same works. The collection itself is not a "work" written by that author. If the author wrote another novel in the meantime and it is added to the omnibus for the reissue, but the title remains the same, would that be the same "work" or a different one ?

The discogs style master release is not comparable, because in order to associate a release with a master release, the release itself does not need to be altered at all. A master release is just a folder that contains related individual releases. Which releases are considered to be related is clearly defined. A bookogs style "work" has to be added to the book (the "release") itself. It is way more similar to the new tracks feature of discogs. Adding the collection title to the list of works contained in a book would be like adding a track with the name of the album to a release page.

I understand the desire to organize collections that appeared under a common title, but I don't think the work feature in its current form is suitable for this. Nor is there an immediate need to use it that way, because the individual works will link the different collections and their titles anyhow.

The collection itself is not a "work" written by that author.

I totally disagree with that statement. There are many examples of collections that are considered a work by the author. Not all collections are a rehash of previously published stories/essays/poems. Ignoring all of the other examples that have been cited in this discussion, Different Seasons certainly fits this category. It was the first time that the four novellas were published as a book and it had a theme. Some of the novellas have since been published in other collections, but I don't see the logic in dismissing that primary work.

I don't think the work feature in its current form is suitable for this

Could you please explain why you feel it is not suitable?

because the individual works will link the different collections and their titles anyhow.

That is not always the case. For example, two of the Different Seasons editions have been submitted without listing the individual items contained within. I am guessing that the contents of these two books could be verified with some research, but I have encountered older books that are simply not listed on the internet. If the contents can not be verified then these books will never be collected using the Works credit.

There are many examples of collections that are considered a work by the author.

That might very well be the case, but that is not the issue here. A collection cannot exist without the works it contains. Without them, it is not more than a title. "Different Seasons", as a work, is inextricably linked to the four novellas it contains. It cannot exist as another work beside them.

Could you please explain why you feel it is not suitable?

See above. Converting the titles of collections into works, independent of the works they contain, is a logical dead end. Ultimately there should be some kind of hierarchy in the works feature, that allows to define "Different Seasons" as a bracket that automatically includes its four novellas. This can actually evolve over several levels, as the notes of https://www.bookogs.com/book/425927-the-collected-stories-of-t-coraghessan-boyle demonstrate. Several collections can again be bundled to larger collections.

That is not always the case. For example, two of the Different Seasons editions have been submitted without listing the individual items contained within.

Those submissions are incomplete. If they are eventually completed they will also link with the works contained in them. Until then one cannot be sure whether they contain all four novellas anyway.

I totally disagree with that statement.

Same here.

A collection cannot exist without the works it contains.

That is only true if you think that a collection cannot be a work. For me Different Seasons is a work and a collection - I don't think they are, or should be, mutually exclusive.

But that's the main reason for the disagreement here. Luckily "Work" in Bookogs is something that has been invented for our intentions and purposes, so we can also define how to use the function, and change it if needed.

I think, one problem in this discussion is, that some people take the word "works" literally, which it's not meant to be.
On one hand, the wiki page states, the work function should group every edition of a book (similar to the discogs master release) and one section below, the content of the book is defined as works (in contrast to discogs master release, where the content is secondary and the individual tracks are listed but not defined as an item on the database).

I agree with perlator, that it would be more logic and comprehensible, if work as an item and work as the content, be two different things.
Maybe "Edition" for the book and "Works" if the content is not defined by the "Edition" (a single novel would have no work, an ombibus edition would have the "edition"s of the included novels as works). In the case of Different Seasons the four novellas would be works and Different Seasons the edition.

That is only true if you think that a collection cannot be a work.
We are talking about books here. Do you agree that a "work" has to include a minimum of text in order to define it ?

A collection is a collection of works. Otherwise it would not be a collection.. The works contain the text. The collection does contain the works.

It's really that simple.

Luckily "Work" in Bookogs is something that has been invented for our intentions and purposes, so we can also define how to use the function, and change it if needed.

Redefining terms in order to use existing functionality for things it was not designed for, is classic discogs really. It is the very reason why that database has been re-edited over and over again for decades.

A collection is a collection of works.

Of course. But it doesn't mean the collection can't be a work too. A work can contain other works.

Don't get me wrong - I do understand your view, I just don't agree with it, at least not completely.

Redefining terms in order to use existing functionality for things it was not designed for, is classic discogs really.

Actually we've been creating works for certain collections since the function was introduced, it was agreed on in a previous discussion. Excluding them at this point would be rewriting, and we would need to go and remove those collections from the database.

But the function is only about a month old - we're not dealing with a decade old legacy issues.

But it doesn't mean the collection can't be a work too. A work can contain other works.

It is not the aim I don't agree with, it's just the method to achieve it that seems wrong to me. By adding the collection as another work to itself, the fact that the work actually consists of the other works is negated and the content of the resulting larger work is distorted.

I think there are serious limitations in not recognising collections as work. Many, many short story, essay and poetry collection are crafted as a single literary works. To not recognise, for instance, Joyce's Dubliners, Woolf's Common Reader, O'Hara's Lunch Poems, etc. would be daft. These works are more than the sum of their parts. Indeed, I would argue that stripping these collections down to their individual parts and recognising each part as an autonomous or self-contained work is a rather dubious argument.

If the concern is around the site's presentation of works, as I have suggested before one solution would be having an option to specify different types of work (book, poem, story, essay, etc).

I don't see any problem with having several layers to a work. I think it is more dangerous to suggest that we simplify or streamline things at this stage.

I have suggested before one solution would be having an option to specify different types of work (book, poem, story, essay, etc).

I still think it's a good idea. I think it would help with sorting out the Works - it would be nice if they were split into categories. But then we don't even have a view displaying the Works of an author yet. :-)

perlator, I don't normally name and shame users, but it is obvious that you have not abided by the overwhelming consensus of the community to recognize a collected title as a valid Works credit.

I noticed that you failed to add the Works credit Skeleton Crew by Stephen King to a book that you submitted after this discussion, whether that was on purpose or not is unknown. However, you have just removed the Works credit The New York Trilogy from one of your submissions that I edited yesterday.

The history of The New York Trilogy is the three novels that it contains: City of Glass (1985), Ghosts (1986), and The Locked Room (1986) were published as a single volume in 1987 with the title The New York Trilogy. This single volume has been republished on numerous occasions. It is therefore a recognized work.

You may not agree with the community consensus on this matter, but as a user on this site you are bound by the the guidelines and the decisions made by the community. I take a dim view of users who remove valid data based on personal preference.

Once again, a collection of works cannot be a work contained in that collection. It's a simple matter of logic. I do not see a consensus here at all, nor do I see a guideline demanding this kind of feature overload.

From the actual guidelines:
1. The Work is the composition, or creative piece of text published in the physical object. This applies to novels, short stories, poems, articles, or other creative works.

  1. The purpose of the Work page is to group together all individual physical published editions of the work, including translations, or in the case of smaller works, like poems and short stories, all collections and editions where these works can be found.

In order to achieve 2 (the purpose of the Work page) all individual works (as defined in 1) should be added to the individual book pages. It does not require maintaining the collections as "works" at all.

Apart from this The New York Trilogy has already been turned into a series (which it isn't really). Having it as a work as well, simply creates a duplicate of the series.

Please could you explain how the definition in your first point would not apply to poetry, short story or essays collections designed by their author to be a singular unit (not just the sum of their parts)?

Please could you also perhaps provide a rationale for how you are deciding what doesn't count as a work? Is it based on a certain bibliographic definition that is recognised more broadly?

Also what do we stand to loose from not allowing collections to be recognised as works?

What do we stand to loose ? The db has to be constructed using proper definitions and guidelines and it should not require individual users to go around the site adding things that are not obvious from these guidelines.

If a book is a singular unit ( a poetry collection for example, a novel with self contained chapters) that was never intended to be published in parts, it should not be broken up into parts (works). Otherwise the site ends up treating chapters of novels as works too. This might require a more precise definition of what a work is, but for now, according to the existing guidelines a "collection" is not considered a work. It is defined by the collection of its parts (short stories, novels, essays).

A good example of the latter case is Amy Tan's Joy Luck Club. It is considered a novel, even though it consists of sixteen stories that also can be read individually.
One of these stories actually appeared in The Granta Book of the American Short Story edited by Richard Ford. I have linked to the novel as the work in this case, marking the story as an excerpt of it, because breaking up the novel into its chapters wouldn't make sense. They were not intended as short stories to be published individually.

If a book is a singular unit ( a poetry collection for example, a novel with self contained chapters) that was never intended to be published in parts, it should not be broken up into parts (works).

While that might be ideal, that's not the reality. Many novels have had chapters published separately, even as separate books. IMO when the chapter gets an independent publication (no matter what the original intention was), and it's not just treated as an excerpt, I think it should be treated as a work.

In another thread I brought up Cupid and Psyche by Apuleius. It's from The Golden Ass, but has been published separately various times. Would it really be harmful for the database to treat both The Golden Ass and Cupid and Psyche as works?

In another thread I brought up Cupid and Psyche by Apuleius. It's from The Golden Ass, but has been published separately various times. Would it really be harmful for the database to treat both The Golden Ass and Cupid and Psyche as works?

Probably not, but would the Golden Ass be treated as a collection that contains Cupid and Psyche ? What would be the other works then ? It would be more reasonable to add a note to Cupid and Psyche (the work) that it originally appeared as a tale in The Golden Ass. As it currently does.

I don't think this kind of thing is what the works feature was intended for.

Probably not, but would the Golden Ass be treated as a collection that contains Cupid and Psyche ?

No, it's usually considered a novel. My point was that there are cases where it's logical to have both the original work and the separated part(s) (or the original works and the collected edition) as works just because of their publication history. It might go against the original intention of the publication(s), but we also have to think about what is the most useful option for cataloging purposes.

I don't think we should create works for random excerpts though.

I don't think this kind of thing is what the works feature was intended for.

Maybe not, who knows... but usually the staff here is pretty open to ideas, and it still feels like we're beta testing the whole site, reporting bugs and bringing up data entry issues. Even the Works wiki page says that "it is something of a work in progress (no pun intended)".

This problem won't be solved, as long there is no way to define a work as a novel, a short story, or whatever.

To perlators "I don't think this kind of thing is what the works feature was intended for.": the wiki page states clearly: "Much like Discogs and Filmogs, the master - in this case ‘Work’ page - serves to group together all individual editions of a book title"
You see? Book Title!

And it goes on: "For the purpose of Bookogs, a Work is the artistic creation (e.g. novel, short story, poem, play)" you are right, collection is not expressly mentioned, but as e.g. means "for example", it's not out of the question to define it as such.

For me personally, I'll would vote for "Work" on collections like Stephen Kings Skeleton Crew or Different Seasons, but would exclude most Omnibus editions
https://www.bookogs.com/book/436370-resident-evil-der-umbrella-faktor
as they just throw some (more or less related) pieces between a cover.

It's already been quoted here, but reading from https://www.bookogs.com/wiki/works-master-pages-on-bookogs
"Much like Discogs and Filmogs, the master - in this case ‘Work’ page - serves to group together all individual editions of a book title."

I don't think it needs to be much clearer than that. However, I also second this idea by p. adkins: "I have suggested before one solution would be having an option to specify different types of work (book, poem, story, essay, etc)." Adding an option to classify some works as collections would clear things up a lot and, in my opinion, erase most of the need for this whole debate. It'd also be very useful if some day there's an option to list all of an author's works on their credit page.

I think that regarding collections as works also helps organize informations on some poems, novels etc. as there'd be more collection-specific pages where to link info to. For example, when & where a novel was first published in English, where excerpts were published, which books contain revised version of a text etc. Not to mention that a works page for a collection could list any errors or major alterations between editions (for example, if editions published past year x. have different content, a different translator or such).

In short, I don't see what we'd be losing by treating collections as works. It seems to me that perlator's main problem with them is the word works in itself, but I don't see it as something that you should let become an obstacle - especially if we're later able to further categorize the works in a way that p. adkins suggested.

(I had to reload the site before posting and noticed there's been two new replies while I was writing this - sorry for any possible overlap!)

For me personally, I'll would vote for "Work" on collections like Stephen Kings Skeleton Crew or Different Seasons, but would exclude most Omnibus editions
https://www.bookogs.com/book/436370-resident-evil-der-umbrella-faktor
as they just throw some (more or less related) pieces between a cover.

The problem with this kind of arbitrariness on a site like this is, that if it is allowed to add a collection title as a work, someone eventually will add it. So all the omnibus editions will become works, every coupled publication of two novels will, and everytime a short story collection mentions that the story originally appeared as part of the collection xyz, someone will add xyz as a work to the collection. It is going to turn in a big intractable, inaccurate and completely useless mess.

https://www.bookogs.com/book/436370-resident-evil-der-umbrella-faktor
as they just throw some (more or less related) pieces between a cover.

Sorry, I don't know how this got in there - I did not write it (can we please have a preview for forum posts ?!)

perlator I see you have removed Skeleton Crew as a Works credit from one your submissions that I edited prior to reviving this Forum thread with my previous comment.

You are now pushing a personal agenda which is totally at odds with the community and the Guidelines. I have filed a Support Request because in my opinion you are breaching the Guidelines by removing valid data.

SextonBlake, I think the personal agenda is yours. Just have a look at that Skeleton Crew work page as an example. https://www.bookogs.com/work/406531-skeleton-crew
Other than the words Skeleton Crew probably being referenced somewhere in the book, what do these books have in common ? Or what do you know about their contents, given the incompleteness of some of the submissions ?

I think the personal agenda is yours

I refute that statement. If you haven't guessed I was previously user Anaideia. In response to uncertainty around whether a collected title is a valid Works credit, I posted this thread to canvass community opinion.

By the standards of Bookogs Forum discussions, this thread has attracted a large number of users, who in the main have refuted your argument and I notice the relevant Guideline has been cited that supports this view.

In contrast, all I have heard from you is an argument based on personal preference.

If I have a personal agenda on this site, then it is simply to maintain the veracity of the data and in so doing, comply with the Guidelines and the decisions of the community.

I have referred this matter to the staff, so I have no further comment.

and I notice the relevant Guideline has been cited that supports this view.
The one at the bottom of
https://www.bookogs.com/wiki/bookogs-general-guidelines
is (once again):
The Work is the composition, or creative piece of text published in the physical object. This applies to novels, short stories, poems, articles, or other creative works.
The purpose of the Work page is to group together all individual physical published editions of the work, including translations, or in the case of smaller works, like poems and short stories, all collections and editions where these works can be found.....

I cannot see how this would contradict my view or even less how removing an invalid work from a collection that does not contain it, might violate any of these guidelines.

Talking about the

veracity of the data
we can have a closer look at

https://www.bookogs.com/book/226499-la-ballade-de-la-balle-elastique-suivi-de-lhomme-qui-refusait-de-serrer-la-main

As far as I understand the title, this book contains two works
https://www.bookogs.com/work/431830-the-ballad-of-the-flexible-bullet
https://www.bookogs.com/work/431970-the-man-who-would-not-shake-hands

It does not contain a work called "Skeleton Crew" nor is "La ballade de la balle élastique suivi de l'homme qui refusait de serrer la main" a translation of that title.

Taking a closer look at one of the stories
https://www.bookogs.com/work/431830-the-ballad-of-the-flexible-bullet
we can observe how the feature works to "group together all individual physical published editions of the work":
https://www.bookogs.com/book/201311-den-forskrackliga-apan
https://www.bookogs.com/book/431819-der-fornit
https://www.bookogs.com/book/431968-skeleton-crew
note that only one of these collections is actually called Skeleton Crew and only two of them contain the entire collection of the original edition in translation.
It would also include
https://www.bookogs.com/book/226499-la-ballade-de-la-balle-elastique-suivi-de-lhomme-qui-refusait-de-serrer-la-main
if it would not erroneously point somewhere else.

Adding collection titles to the list of works contained in the collections is not only logically flawed, it also causes errors in the data.

I have no further comment.
neither do I.

You are quite correct about La ballade de la balle élastique suivi de l'homme qui refusait de serrer la main I don't speak a word of French, so I was relying on the data supplied by the OS who had listed Skeleton Crew as the Original Language Title. At the time, I was generating almost every Works credit for Stephen King which was quite a large task, and I readily admit that I make the occasional mistake.

I have corrected this error by removing Skeleton Crew as a Works credit and replacing it with the two individual Works story credits, along with the appropriate name variations.

I don't really understand the point you are trying to make with the other three books: both https://www.bookogs.com/book/431968-skeleton-crew and https://www.bookogs.com/book/201311-den-forskrackliga-apan contain every story that was first published in Skeleton Crew (1985), therefore the collected Works credit is correct in both cases. I note an ANV has been used on the latter submission, as the name differs from the English collected Works title, which is standard practice. Yes, https://www.bookogs.com/book/431819-der-fornit only contains some of the stories in Skeleton Crew and that is why the collected Works credit has not been used on this submission.

only two of them contain the entire collection of the original edition in translation.

That is correct, which supports my grievance that you removed valid data, i.e. the collected Works credit from https://www.bookogs.com/book/431968-skeleton-crew

Adding collection titles to the list of works contained in the collections is not only logically flawed

Well your opinion seems to be at odds with that of the wider community. At the risk of covering old ground, there are six books that are purportedly the collected work known as Skeleton Crew in the database. Only two of those submissions list the stories contained within. To my mind, not using a collected Works credit in this situation is ludicrous.

it also causes errors in the data

It is a community based website so if you notice errors that can be substantiated, feel free to amend them. However, an edit should not be conducted purely due to personal preferences. Just remember to provide Submission Notes which allow other users to know the rationale behind your edit.

Yes, https://www.bookogs.com/book/431819-der-fornit only contains some of the stories in Skeleton Crew and that is why the collected Works credit has not been used on this submission.
Actually it has, until it was removed from it (thanks for that).
To my mind, not using a collected Works credit in this situation is ludicrous.
To my mind it is completely unnecessary and it distorts the contents of the book. The collection represents all the stories in the book. The book with all the works contained in it does the same. So essentially every story is added twice, by adding the collection to its own contents.
And then there is the question what belongs to the collected work and what does not. If you add or remove one story from it, is it still the same collection ? If you change the title of it, isn't it then a different collection ?
https://www.bookogs.com/book/201311-den-forskrackliga-apan
You added Skeleton Crew as a work to it, naming it "Den forskrackliga apan", which refers to The Monkey, a story within the collection. So now the list of works contains Den Förskräckliga Apan (The Monkey) twice and only by following the links it is clear what each entry actually references. The second one is correct imo, the first is not.

Where are the guidelines regulating all this, not to mention demanding or allowing to add such fictitious works ? This is just personal preference really.

More examples
https://www.bookogs.com/book/326707-se-questo-e-un-uomo-la-tregua
Following the ad hoc concept of collection titles as works, this should contain a work named "Se questo è un uomo / La tregua" ?

Actually it has, until it was removed from it (thanks for that).

I honestly thought this matter had been resolved in favour of creating Works credits for collected titles. Five days ago, I revisited https://www.bookogs.com/book/431819-der-fornit and concluded that the collected Works credit was incorrect, so I removed it. I want to make it clear that my edit to that submission was not prompted by, or was the catalyst for this reignited debate.

I don't think I have anything more to say than that. Thanks.

Weighing in here as this is a great discussion but it looks like we’ve reached an impasse. To be honest, I hadn’t thought of collections as Works and I was a bit skeptical at first, but having followed the discussion, I see the logic and I’m in support of a published collection being a Work. Each story or novel, for example, can be saved as a work, as well as the collection itself. Skeleton Crew, Dubliners and Common Reader are great examples of when you would want an overview of all published editions, translations and variations of that book.

I also think there’s a case for omnibuses (omnibi?) getting their own work as well. Examples like The Lord Of The Rings or The Chronicles of Narnia will have been published several times, in several languages over time as a single edition and it would be cool to see these grouped together. Same for things like the complete works of Shakespeare or Poe, etc.

As Bookogs (and all other *ogs sites) are community-driven, collaborative projects, we do allow for wiggle room and discussion with the guidelines. We’d rather not impose rules or guidelines but work on an agreement together, as the community is often more qualified and expert than us when it comes to cataloging and archiving data.

Perhaps likening the Works function to Discogs’ Master Releases was a poor choice of words as books are obviously a whole different animal to music releases. The suggestion to create more specificity within the works umbrella is an interesting one (e.g. separating out novels, poems, short stories, essays, collections), and definitely something we can discuss if there’s support for that. In the meantime, let's go with collections as works.

Falsepriest, thanks for weighing. I completely agree with the stance you have taken.

One further point regarding omnibi (why not) and anthologies: usually they are edited by a named individual and there is something unique and creative in what has been chosen or excluded, making them, in themselves, a kind of creative work. I think it is great we will recognise this with Works credits.

I think that we should all focus on cataloguing books as carefully as possible rather than imposing a set of guidelines on them that we have decided in advance.

Great point about the omnibi/anthologies, p.adkins

Falsepriest, thanks for weighing. I completely agree with the stance you have taken.

Same here. :-)

RE: omnibi/anotholgies - I assume that in the case of multi-writer anthologies, the editor should be set as the Author of the Work?

I should really start spell-checking my posts... :P

How does one list a work (collection) by an author that features a novel with the same name? I mean that there's a book called X, which features the novels X, Y, Z. Should they be listed as
- X (novel)
- X (book)
or simply as X (1), X (2) - or should the works for the book be added at all?

I'm asking as I'll be submitting some books which carry the name of one of their novels and the book/collection has had multiple prints (meaning the book would need a "master release"-type works credit). It's not the only place where the novel has been published, so a work credit would be needed for both the book & novel.

I already came across this issue when listing this one: https://www.bookogs.com/book/442071-tabu
The book is called Tabu, and features novels/novellas called Tabu and Sankarihymni. There's also a book by the author listed on bookogs which features one of his other books (Maa On Syntinen Laulu) and Tabu, but I don't know whether it features Sankarihymni as well. At the moment I simply resolved this by not adding a separate work for the book, just made one for the novel.

Is there a solution for this matter, or are we waiting for work categories (poem, book, collection, novel...) as discussed earlier to appear?

Ambassador_M I think the jury is still out on this question. It was discussed here: https://www.bookogs.com/forum/1038-master-releases

I have noticed a trend towards using the standard bracketed variation number with Works credits. Keep in mind the numbering begins at (2) not (1): the first variation is XXXXX, second variation XXXXX (2).

just interjecting to add my support to having a collection of works also treated as a work. collections are sometimes reprinted as parts of larger books, plus collections of works e.g. anthologies often run to multiple editions - e.g. the heath anthology of american literature, which is definitely a work in its own right that also contains other works.

here's one that i was considering last night.

i bought an anthology of Aliens stories containing two novels from a series. there is also an anthology containing those two plus a third.

so the anthology i bought has a works sections that shows:

anthology 1
novel 1
novel 2

seems reasonable, right?

ok, so should the other anthology's works credits be:

anthology 2
anthology 1
novel 1
novel 2
novel 3

my feeling is that it should!

but having followed the discussion, I see the logic and I’m in support of a published collection being a Work.

Considering the way the works feature "works", it is the logic that is missing here. At least I fail to see it.

The works feature is just the wrong tool for assembling books with related titles or other related features on one page.

Perhaps likening the Works function to Discogs’ Master Releases was a poor choice of words as books are obviously a whole different animal to music releases.

It was a poor choice of words, but not because books are so different from music releases. The works feature simply has no conceptual similarity with the discogs master release.
Each work can be likened with a track of an album. Showing all albums (=books) that contain the same track or composition (=work) on one page is what the discogs track feature is trying to achieve. Now imagine discogs would be missing the master release feature and in order to collect all similar albums on one page, a track with the album title would have to be added to the track list of each release. I try to imagine the outcry this would create in the discogs forum.

The list of works contained in a collection of works is a straightforward way to assemble its table of contents (its tracklist if you like). If the list of works is injected with all sorts of titles that only serve to show the book on the same page with other books having the same title, this table of contents is distorted. I don't know if there are plans for bookogs to be developed any further to make it more user friendly. But the clean list of works would provide a simple way to assemble the table of contents of a book instead of users having to type the list of fifty short stories in again, after just having entered the fifty works associated with each chapter. Actually, considering that the works also contain author information, it would also help to create an automatic list of credits for the book in question.

Now imagine discogs would be missing the master release feature and in order to collect all similar albums on one page, a track with the album title would have to be added to the track list of each release.

Books are very different though. While most records contain several tracks/works, books are exactly the opposite: most books include just one work. This would create a huge overlap between the two functions if they existed in Bookogs. The 'Master' page and the 'Work' pages would be identical, or almost identical.

Allowing us to use the Work function for collections avoids this overlap/redundancy, and is a more straightforward and less confusing option because of that, at least in my opinion.

I try to imagine the outcry this would create in the discogs forum.

What change doesn't create an outcry in the Discogs forum... ;p

The 'Master' page and the 'Work' pages would be identical, or almost identical.
Why ? The master page would only exist if there is a reason to create one. Unlike the work pages, which exist as soon as a work is created. It's the same with master releases on discogs. If there is only a single release of a recording in the db, there is no need for a master release. And if the individual releases differ too much, they do not belong to the same master release either.

Besides, I am sure there will be other incentives to bundle different books together. Same cover art, same title, but different from that of the (single) work contained, same edition, whatever. With only the works feature available, I'm sure these groupings will eventually be turned into works as well.

Allowing us to use the Work function for collections avoids this overlap/redundancy, and is a more straightforward and less confusing option because of that, at least in my opinion.

I don't see any overlap tbh. And using the works feature is not straightforward at all, because it requires editing the book.

What change doesn't create an outcry in the Discogs forum... ;p
True.

@elahrairah - That sounds good to me at least. :-)

If there is only a single release of a recording in the db, there is no need for a master release.

I was talking about instances where the master page would be needed.

Take for example The Shining:
https://www.bookogs.com/work/406522-the-shining

As all the books there contain one work (AFAICS), the master page for The Shining would be exactly identical. Instead of repeating even partially the same pages, IMO it's easier to just expand the definition of the Work to work as the first layer of the bundling.

Besides, I am sure there will be other incentives to bundle different books together. Same cover art, same title, but different from that of the (single) work contained, same edition, whatever. With only the works feature available, I'm sure these groupings will eventually be turned into works as well.

No one has really suggested that, but I believe we have used the Work function to group Bible translations. But as Bible is going to be whole different beast from basically any other book, it's going to be an exception in many ways.

In general though we're pretty far from a situation where will need more layers, as we maybe have a handful of editions that have more than one printing in the database. What kind of hierarchy is eventually needed remains to be seen. Books are so much more complicated than records, so the Discogs one-layer system will never work here.

Why not try it out, and see if it's really that bad? Sometimes it takes time to get used to things. :-)

I echo mirva's comment, the first thing I had to do when I started on Bookogs was forget most of my training on Discogs. The Discogs model simply does not work with books. I have occasional lapses where I make analogies to that system, but in the main it is not helpful. I also think there is a tendency to use terminology coined on Discogs simply because it is familiar.

perlator, one point that you made that I totally agree with, and that is a partial collected title should not qualify for the collected Works credit. If a submission is demonstrably a partial version of the original collected title, then I wouldn't add the collected title Works credit.

There has been some discussion regarding the treatment of extracts and adaptations and I don't believe this has been resolved. For example, novels such as Tom Sawyer and Gulliver's Travels, which have been adapted for children's books, are usually drastically edited versions. I have included them as Works by the respective authors, but whether this is correct or not probably needs clarification. It really depends on the definition of "author".

In summary, I would use the Works credit for extracts, adaptations, and edited versions of an author's work, but I wouldn't use the collected Works credit on a book that is only a partial version of the original collected title.

As all the books there contain one work (AFAICS), the master page for The Shining would be exactly identical.

So, why would we need a master page there ? As I said, folders for similar books (and this is all we are really talking about) would only be required if the similarity goes beyond containing the same work. Creating a somewhat artificial and poorly defined work for that purpose is just a bad concept.

IMO it's easier to just expand the definition of the Work to work as the first layer of the bundling.

I could agree with that, if there really was some kind of hierarchy involved. If the work concept could be applied in layers, similar to the discogs index tracks, this would be ideal to define a collection of works like Skeleton Crew. If the bundle is undefined, as it currently is, the work that represents the collection is just another work in the list. It can be arbitrarily positioned and it is not clear that it actually bundles all the other works.

In general though we're pretty far from a situation where will need more layers, as we maybe have a handful of editions that have more than one printing in the database. What kind of hierarchy is eventually needed remains to be seen. Books are so much more complicated than records, so the Discogs one-layer system will never work here.

I don't think that books are more complicated than records. The one layer system does not really work in discogs either (just have a look at classical releases). The problem is that it is much too late to introduce a different system now that the db has millions of entries. As this db is new, with a few thousand entries, there is still time to think about how things are best organized. Taking the next best solution and start editing is just premature. Rather than applying the works concept as is, for things it really was not designed for, it could be modified and adapted or complemented by another feature. Until then the existence of the db does not really depend on the definition of collections as works.

Creating a somewhat artificial and poorly defined work for that purpose is just a bad concept.

The problem as I see it is your definition of a work. All of these sites list Skeleton Crew as a distinct work:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13440.Skeleton_Crew?from_search=true
https://www.stephenking.com/library/written.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeleton_Crew
https://www.amazon.com/Skeleton-Crew-Stephen-King/dp/0451168615

Why should Bookogs be any different?

The problem as I see it is your definition of a work. All of these sites list Skeleton Crew as a distinct work:

None of the sites you quote has a works concept similar to the one existing here, afaict.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeleton_Crew
has a list of the short stories (the works) in the collection. The same list on bookogs would include a "work" called Skeleton Crew, according to the suggested quick fix. Which is "a collection of short fiction" according to Wikipedia, but not a work contained in the collection.

Whether a collection is considered a work (by the author or someone else) is a moot point. The question is how the collection is technically represented in the db.

So, why would we need a master page there ?

So, we would only create a master page if the publication was not a valid work, and if there were multiple copies of it? Unfortunately that is two many 'ifs' too much. Exceptions and such are not really user-friendly. You probably know how much confusion the old mono/stereo rule caused in Discogs, and there was only one 'if' there, and a lot simpler concept.

I don't think that books are more complicated than records. The one layer system does not really work in discogs either (just have a look at classical releases)

But it works for the majority of releases. We're probably going to need at least 2-3 layers, and/or some other filtering options. We have different types of editions to deal with (translations, special editions, adaptations, republications, etc.), we have printings and all the changes done between printings, and depending on how well we want to cater to book collectors, printings can have multiple states as well. I'm aware that popular records can get quite complicated, but in general the one-layer master is sufficient.

I don't remember if I've mentioned this before,, but not recognizing anthologies as works also belittles the work done by the editor, and would be an unfortunate judgement call by Bookogs. Considering that they are not always collections of previously published works (in which case there is a lot of work involved as well), the editor does the majority of the work on these publications, and is usually considered the 'author' of the anthology.

As the majority of users involved in this discussion agree, I'd like to move on to discuss the details and practical problems of collections.

There has been some discussion regarding the treatment of extracts and adaptations and I don't believe this has been resolved.

I think that deserves a thread of its own. I've been also thinking about it as I've been entering fairy and folk tales to the database.

yeah, i think that there needs to be a credit for extracts and things like fairy tales and for single poems that are normally part of another collection but are copied individually into another book.

Exceptions and such are not really user-friendly.

But logically sound db categories are user friendly. Tables of contents that contain only the actual works contained in a collection and not placeholders that only serve to sort the data are also user friendly. A database that requires a minimum of intervention by their users is user friendly.

I don't remember if I've mentioned this before,, but not recognizing anthologies as works also belittles the work done by the editor, and would be an unfortunate judgement call by Bookogs.

You have mentioned this before. I don't think this is a place to recognize the accomplishments of editors or authors by bestowing certain db categories onto their works. Do you expect Stephen King would sue bookogs, because it is correctly describing Skeleton Crew as a collection of short stories and not as a work? I don't really mind describing it as a work either, but if that makes the book appear like there is a short story called Skeleton Crew contained in it, the database that this place is trying to be is held up to ridicule.

As the majority of users involved in this discussion agree, I'd like to move on to discuss the details and practical problems of collections.

This is exactly what I am trying to do. But it feels like talking to a tree.

I think I'd rather prefer reading a good book or two.

"Works" as it is at this point, is... let's call it "not fully developed".
There were suggestions, a definition in brackets could be added: xyz (collection) xyz (short story) etc.
I thought of a splitted works function, part physical item (the book itself) as being a single novel, a collection, an omnibus edition, whatever, part content (like included stories) but maybe this would cause double trouble on books which include only one work (mostly on novels).

It would be easier if the genres were divided into type (novel, short story, poem, anthology) and theme (horror, science fiction, comedy, crime).

It would be easier if the genres were divided into type (novel, short story, poem, anthology)

Yeah, a similar idea came up in the other thread, to be able to sort works, and to improve search results. I wouldn't even mind if they were completely separated from genres because they are not really genres. Hopefully something like that can be implemented. :-)

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.