I’m tracking works that have been clearly revised over time. I’m struggling with coming up with a consistent way of disambiguating the works in this case. Most cases I’m seeing are associated with a published editions; would it be fair to specify (1874 edition) and (1895 edition) as disambiguation of works?
1 Like
I don’t like the idea of using the term “edition” on the work level.
I’d prefer terms like “1865 revised version” or “1973 expanded version”
4 Likes
OK, how would you refer to the “original” version? (1874 original)?
2 Likes
yes, we can use that.
OK, thanks, will run with that. We should probably codify the practice in the guideline…
1 Like
Personally, I don’t think we should be so concerned about the word “edition” here. Editions aren’t works, but some works have versions known for being published in a specific edition. Since we should be concise in disambiguations, “1895 edition” on a work disambiguation really stands for “1895 edition version”, i.e. version of the work published in this edition. What is particular about this version can be explained in the annotation.
I think more important is to:
- Use a canonical title if it exists. If it is generally known as the “X edition”, use that; if it is known as the “Y version”, use that; if it is known as the “John Doe revision”, use that.
- Be consistent. If there is the “1895 edition”, the “1872 version” and the “1924 revision” of the work, this can be very confusing. It would be better to be use different words only is something different is meant.
Maybe “version” is better for most cases, but I don’t think we should make this style guide rule.
1 Like