If you mean this in reference to using the term as an alias for comics, I have to agree — that was a mistake. For Westerners, it’s confusing; for Asians, it adds nothing. I’ll remove it.
Would this do?
- Legal instrument — A formal written legal document.
True, but cookbooks exist, and we should be open to any kind of publication — we all have our preferences. And cookbooks are different from the reference works I included above, a dictionary definition or an encyclopedia entry by themselves are useless, but a recipe can easily be published separately.
I really only meant Yonkoma and cookbooks, forgetting about comics was really an oversight on my part.
- Yonkoma alias 4-koma — Comic strip consisting of four panels of the same size arranged vertically.
- Recipe — A set of instructions for making a dish of prepared food. Recipes are generally preceded by the list of necessary ingredients.
How does this look?
Hmm, if I’m supposed to enter my manga as a ‘comic’ then I would leave the alias
Because of this confusion, I would prefer a subtype, but again, don’t worry about getting bogged down. At some point all the comics and cookbook enthusiasts will turn up at BB and then they can hash it out.
I think some may interpret this to exclude legal documents such as pleadings, briefs and affidavits. I don’t have any such works to include at present—I even forgot affidavits in my list above. So I can live with it. If we wanted to be all-inclusive of legal documents, however, I would suggest a more general term.
And you changed my mind again! It doesn’t add anything, but it’s useful as a signpost for manga readers.
I’ve really tried to see this from your side, but I still can’t agree manga are different from comics. Even the most orientalist Japanese culture websites define manga as Japanese comics, and we’re not dividing work types by country of origin or style, genre, etc. But you are right, this can be discussed when we have more comics/manga enthusiasts adding their books.
Great. I just don’t want to add something I don’t understand, and to do this properly I’d have to do some serious reading about all those different documents — which feels like a waste of time, when no one is actually going to add these works. For now, at least.
It seems the finish line is in sight. I edited my initial post to reflect the changes we discussed here:
- Removed folk tale fiction type. @pbryan
- Added two subtypes to the Play category, Stage play and Screenplay. @pbryan
- Added Comics fiction type and several comics subtypes. @UltimateRiff
- Added Legal instrument nonfiction type. @pbryan
- Added Recipe nonfiction type. @UltimateRiff
Let me know if you have any more corrections/suggestions/additions.
In a photo-book, should each photo be a work? Does the same apply for artbooks?
Should instructional works like the For Dummies series be considered a form of reference work?
Should travel guides be considered a type of work, or something better handled by a future genre system?
Well done guys, looks really good.
Just some additions
- “interview” for (not only) periodicals (maybe also something like “discussion” or “debate” when more than just two people are participating).
- “auction catalogue” and “exhibition catalogue” for the arts section (I know there will be a debate if “work” or not)
- How do we call the work that is contained in a picture book for childrens?
- “Review” as a sub type of “Opinion piece”
- “Interpretation” for works that are analysing other works
- maybe “textbook”, but it’s not easy to define, so maybe not
- do we need a multiple option field or do we just have one choice?
We will be stumbling about a lot more types but it’s a good start.
ooh, with that we could add any CritiqueBrainz reviews… how very meta~
I’ve been thinking about photos since the Work entity discussion. My current thinking is that these shouldn’t be considered BB works. We need to consider what BB is for. Everything we discussed so far are forms of text, or at least “things that are read”. Images are a big part of comics, but you read comics, as you read a poem, a recipe, or a biography. You don’t read a photo. If we allow photos, we need to allow other kinds of visual artwork. Given that most books have at least one (in the cover) and can have many (a novel is only one work, but can have dozens of illustrations, a biography — one work — can have dozens of photos), we may up with more visual artworks in BB than “things that are read”, it could end up primarily an ArtBrainz — not a bad idea, but not what we’re trying to do here.
So what do I think we should do with this kind of books? First of all, ed. groups and editions should be added like any other book, those definitely belong here, like any other book. Secondly, the artists should to added to the edition with the appropriate relationships — we already have those. Lastly, many of these books also include introductions, essays, or any other kind of textual works; these should be added — but not the visual artworks.
I think the For Dummies series has developed into a franchise with different kinds of works, so it’s not impossible that some are reference books, but traditional For Dummies books aren’t. Reference works generally consist of individual entries and are not meant to be read cover to cover (e.g. a dictionary, you look up a specific word, you don’t read it from Aalenian to zythum), For Dummies are instructional books meant to read in their entirety.
Here I’m just not sure. My feeling is that there are different kinds of travel guides, that they’re not easily defined as one type, but I don’t actually own any, and it’s hard to know what to say without looking at a bunch of different examples. If own or have read a good number of different travel guides, you feel it should be a type and want to try for a definition, go ahead.
These two I think really belong here, I just wasn’t trying to be exhaustive, especially for categories we don’t have many works yet. I’ll work on the definition.
How about “picture book story?” This is something that didn’t cross my mind, but absolutely makes sense. And, for picture books, there’s also a few ed. group types to add…
Do you mean it as work type or relationship? If work type, can you give some examples?
I think eventually we may have to add something like textbook, but it’s going to be tricky, not everything that can be called a textbook can fit a definition.
Are you saying that it is? I would like to hear your opinion. My immediate thought is that catalogues are a bit like photo books, so what I said above applies. But I don’t own any catalogue, I’m really not sure.
When I started working on this, I assumed it would be multiple choice, but the more I worked on it, the more I think it shouldn’t a categories and subcategories system. That is what I’m proposing. So, if you select the Shakespearean sonnet type, you are saying three things, this work is a work of poetry, it uses the sonnet poetic form, and it used specifically the English version of that form. So, in a way, it is multiple choice, but not vague like a tagging system. Defining these terms, we are much clearer and more specific than we can be with a tagging system.
+1. We’ve decided that works in BB are literary works, and photographs are not literary works. Therefore, I think it’s appropriate for picture books to be catalogued as books, without including works. We should add additional edition types to capture these types of books.
where a poem is followed by an interpretation of that poem.
But maybe a work-work relation will be enough (reviews will also need this relation of course)
Auction and exhibition catalogues:
On second thought I think we should treat some as other art books. When I added the first ones back then, there were no “series” yet. I think we can use these ro group catalogues.
- Review — Critical evaluation of an artistic work, performance, or product.
- Interview — The reproduction of a series of questions posed by a member of the press and the answers given by the person being interviewed.
(Defining the written reproduction — the work —, not the meeting where the questions are asked.)
- Picture book story — A story, generally for young children, with many pictures and a simple narrative. Books consisting of such stories are called picture books.
This, for me, really depends on what interpretation means here. The author’s personal opinion/feelings? Or poetical analysis (of criteria such as style, rhythm, etc.)? We can keep discussing this, but it may be better to do that at a latter time. As I’m writing this, I think there’s a place for one or more work types related to commentary/close reading/exegesis, and maybe what you have in mind would fit here. But I would prefer to leave this for a latter time.
In any case, we need an “about” work-to-work relationship. (Which already exists as a work-to-author relationship.)
- Picture book story
@indy133, I ended up deciding to not consider a review an opinion piece, since there is generally the assumption that somebody writing a review is an expert, while the same isn’t true for somebody writing an opinion piece. Let me know if this distinction doesn’t make sense to you,
You are right. it’s better this way, thx…
for what it’s worth, you don’t need to be an expert to write a CritiqueBrainz review…
That is true, but are you suggesting adding all CritiqueBrainz users as BB authors, and their reviews as BB works? And all Amazon users as authors and their product reviews as works? Every Tripadvisor review? Etc., etc. I think the work types we are now adding should be mainly for the Ed. Group types we currently have on BB: book, leaflet, newspaper, magazine, and journal.
I do think eventually we need to think how to add web-based works, I’m sure there are books that were published on the Web as a website and may not even exist in other formats, but that doesn’t mean everything on the Web is a literary work.
I don’t know that I would personally add them at this time, but I wouldn’t be against anyone who wants to document these either
then again, someone’s gotta document @sound.and.vision’s glorious reviews…