Discussion questions
- Should we add an 'editions' field to the 'Reception' form (like the one in the 'Works' form, or should we continue to place this information in the 'References' field?
- Would the implementation of certain 'obligatory fields' (i.e. fields that need to be filled in order to create a record) help you in any way?
- Is the 'Country' problem solved by simply adding more countries, or should another field be added (i.e. 'current country' and 'historical country')?
- What are your thoughts on the 'narrative topoi' field, or something similar? Is it useful? Should it be in English?
- Right now, we have several 'category' author records marked by ~~, such as '~~author (name unknown)', '~~translator male (name below)', etc. Should we keep all of these, or do you think just 'author' (instead of 'translator', 'author', 'literary historian' etc.) would work as well? Which distinctions ('male (name below)', 'female (name unknown)', etc.) do we need?
- How should we treat works that were published much later than they were written, such as posthumously published correspondence? Should the 'year of first publication' be the actual year of publication (even it is a 20th or 21st century date), or a year corresponding more closely to the time the work was written?
- Adding sources, genres, reception types, libraries, etc.: how do we go about it?
Astrid Kulsdom, 14 October 2010