[open-bibliography] [ol-discuss] Multivolume works

Lars Aronsson lars at aronsson.se
Thu May 3 22:48:19 UTC 2012

On 2012-05-04 00:21, Ben Companjen wrote:
> I was going to suggest putting the number of the volume in the Series
> field, but after reading back in the archives (e.g. [1]) and looking
> up  definitions of volume I see the difference between series and
> volumes and think they shouldn't be mixed up.

There also was a thread in May 2011 about "Serials/Journals cataloging",
where George Oates mentioned taking a look into this, but I don't
know if anything happened after that.

> There is information on volumes in the data (in edition records: 1x
> "volume_number", 26x "volumes"; no keys like these in work records)
> and there is a type "/type/volume" [2], although I have no idea how
> that is supposed to be used.

Interesting. Is there any statistics from the database dumps, on how
commonly each type is used? Was this type something that was designed
but never used?

In my case, this is an encyclopedia in 11 volumes, the first containing
A-C, 2nd volume D-F, etc. You can easily imagine a 2nd edition of the
encyclopedia containing 5 or 15 volumes.

The 7 novels about Harry Potter are a series because they were published
independently. If the same were published as "the collected works of J.K.
Rowling", they might be 7 volumes, because the larger whole carries
its own title. The series doesn't necessarily have a real title. Still,
I think the same bibliographic data and link structures could be used.
I would still want one record for the whole and one for each part,
with some number to indicate the sequence of the parts.

   Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
   Project Runeberg - free Nordic literature - http://runeberg.org/

More information about the open-bibliography mailing list