Audiobooks often have “director” (German: “Regie”) credits.
How should that be represented?
Also, they sometimes have a “text editor” (German: “Textbearbeitung” or “Lesefassung by …”). The “editor” relationship is AFAIK used for the editing process of the sound.
So how should this “text editor” be represented?
I have no strong opinion on the director – producer, I guess?
A work for the original text should exist. If the audiobook uses an edited version, then create another work, and link them. The editor can get writing credits on the latter work, while the original author should get them on both works.
Director and producer are often different roles, much like in Hollywood movies.
Creating a new work is a possible solution. I don’t like it very much though, because there could be so many works that it became confusing and because currently for translations the relation to the original work would not be displayed but to the translated version.
I guess these are similar reasons why the CSG says this about arrangements:
Do not create a new work for improvised arrangements, “head-arrangements”, private / unpublished arrangements or when the arranger is unknown. […] There must be at least two different recordings available.
There should be a work of type prose for the text.
If this text was originally written in one language and translated into another language another work of type prose should be created.
There is a work to work relationship to indicate that this work is a translated version of another work.
There is a translator relationship that can be added to works to indicate the person that converted the text from one language to another.
The below is an example of a german edition of an English story.
You are absolutely right. In fact, I was the one who added and edited this release 
This release is a good example. The audiobook is a “Autorisierte Lesefassung” which means “abridged version for readers”. The name of this editor is not listed. Currently we have the original work “Little Brother” (writer “Cory Doctorow”) and the German translation “Little Brother (Roman)” (writer “Cory Doctorow”, translator “Uwe-Michael Gutzschhahn”, translated version of “Little Brother”).
We could add another work “Little Brother (German abridged version for readers)” (writer “Cory Doctorow”, translator “Uwe-Michael Gutzschhahn”, later version of “Little Brother (Roman)”, additional writer “[unknown]”). Then the current webserver would show the relationship to the German translation, but not the relationship to the original “Little Brother”.
We could also add “Little Brother (German abridged version for readers)” “is a translated version of” “Little Brother”, so this original work is also shown on the webpage. That way we could represent “[unknown]” as additional editor, i.e. text editor.
Now these relationships contain redundant information:
a --abridged-version-of–> b --translated-version-of–> c
a --translated-version-of–> c
This is similar to our redundant relationships to the original author:
a --written-by–> x
b --written-by–> x
c --written-by–> x
Is this what we want? (I don’t have an answer and hope to come to a consensus.)
I think this situation is similar to the arranger credits. There are arranger relationships for the recording and also for the work. The CSG explicitly does not want new works for every arrangement, only for those with multiple recordings.
Any ideas for the director relationship?
In the past, for music videos, I was told to use “miscellaneous support” for the director, possibly with an annotation to explain that. This seems similar.
That’s not to say it wouldn’t be nice for MB to get a director AR.
That was requested at some point. But it was for some musical thing rather than videos or audiobooks. Turns out “director” means a ton of different things, so we either add a “director” relationship that has no real meaning other than “this guy was called a director by someone”, or we need more specific, well defined rels.
I’d really like to see this for videos 
Doesn’t most information/relationships in MB equate to this in the end?
This one might be a bit more of a flaky definition than most, but if someone’s credited as a “director” then I don’t see how we can do better (barring some behind the scenes information) than crediting them as a “director” here?
Some sub-types surely could be useful, but that’s secondary imo.
Is the worry that you could have a video with two directors and not know one had nothing to do with the video? Would director (video) and director (audio) help solve this?
I mean more that we would probably want two different things. Like, if we know someone “performed bass”, we have a different relationship for “performed bass vocals” and “performed bass guitar” for example. It’s easy to define “music video director” as its own relationship - not sure how easy it is to define an audiobook director, since I’m not too familiar with audiobooks (they’re pretty much nonexistent in Spain so I’ve never used one).
Not really a good example, since we do have a generic “bass” relationship?
Sub-types might be really useful, but it’s not what’s being asked for here, and is sending a pretty straightforward suggestion into the MB weeds imo.
But I do like hanging out in those weeds so here goes 
The main problem with the comparison to instruments in MB is that a directors role in general is very ill defined. On a movie set he might not even worry about visual shots that much if he heavily leans on his cinematographer or director of photography, and might be fully invested in the performances - or he might be more interested in the visual side of things and let his first AD more or less handle that side, and so on for pretty much everything.
@tommycrock’s suggestion would be helpful in some fringe cases for sure, though there’s some niggling issues, like a video director still directing some audio in a lot of cases.
Anyway, for me “Director” just means takes someone who takes responsibility and provides oversight for the creative outcome. Which is equally applicable to pretty much any medium/production/performance I think.
I don’t know why we dive into film jargon all the time (well, music videos are an excuse). It keeps confusing me, because I think a „producer“ in music production is often more like a film director than a film producer.
Isn’t she (music producer, film director) the one who has the overall vision how things should sound/look like, pushing (or, well: directing) the sundry artists further along the way to this goal?