Database discussion - Revision history

AKulsdom at 08:29, 14 October 2010

AKulsdom — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:29:59 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 08:29, 14 October 2010
Line 10:		Line 10:
	* Is the 'Country' problem solved by simply adding more countries, or should another field be added (i.e. 'current country' and 'historical country')?<br><br>		* Is the 'Country' problem solved by simply adding more countries, or should another field be added (i.e. 'current country' and 'historical country')?<br><br>

-	* What are your thoughts on the 'narrative topoi' field? Is it useful? Should it be in English?<br><br>	+	* What are your thoughts on the 'narrative topoi' field, or something similar? Is it useful? Should it be in English?<br><br>

-	* Right now, we have several 'empty' 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?<br><br>	+	* 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?<br><br>

	* 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?<br><br>		* 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?<br><br>

AKulsdom at 08:06, 14 October 2010

AKulsdom — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:06:25 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 08:06, 14 October 2010
Line 16:		Line 16:
	* 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?<br><br>		* 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?<br><br>

-	*	+	* Adding sources, genres, reception types, libraries, etc.: how do we go about it?

	<br><br>		<br><br>

AKulsdom: New page:
NOEDITSECTION == Discussion questions ==

* Should we add an 'editions' field to the [http://neww.huygens.knaw.nl/receptions/edit/21318 'Reception' form] (like the one in...

AKulsdom — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:58:19 GMT

New page: __NOEDITSECTION__ == Discussion questions == * Should we add an 'editions' field to the [http://neww.huygens.knaw.nl/receptions/edit/21318 'Reception' form] (like the one in...

New page

__NOEDITSECTION__
== Discussion questions ==

 
* Should we add an 'editions' field to the [http://neww.huygens.knaw.nl/receptions/edit/21318 'Reception' form] (like the one in the [http://neww.huygens.knaw.nl/works/edit/3931 '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? Is it useful? Should it be in English? 

* Right now, we have several 'empty' 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? 

*

 
Astrid Kulsdom, 14 October 2010 

<hr>

Database discussion - Revision history

AKulsdom at 08:29, 14 October 2010

AKulsdom at 08:06, 14 October 2010

AKulsdom: New page: __NOEDITSECTION__ == Discussion questions == * Should we add an 'editions' field to the [http://neww.huygens.knaw.nl/receptions/edit/21318 'Reception' form] (like the one in...

AKulsdom: New page:
NOEDITSECTION == Discussion questions ==

* Should we add an 'editions' field to the [http://neww.huygens.knaw.nl/receptions/edit/21318 'Reception' form] (like the one in...