4 ms·

Thanks. So Open Library implemented that because there's no interoperable, universal concept for literary "works"? And then each of Goodreads, Amazon Retail,

Thanks. So Open Library implemented that because there's no interoperable, universal concept for literary "works"? And then each of Goodreads, Amazon Retail, Ingram, et al. would likely have their own internal system for isbn identification and grouping accordingly? And I guess that means similarly, there's no isbn-analog for a series or interrelated set of "works"?

cdrini 6y ago
Yep! They do. But the book-universe has largely landed on similar definitions for what a "work" is. E.g. here's GoodReads work id (in the url): https://www.goodreads.com/work/editions/69741-the-old-man-and-the-sea https://www.goodreads.com/work/editions/69741-the-old-man-an... Here's works/editions in schema.org: https://schema.org/CreativeWork https://schema.org/CreativeWork (work) ; https://schema.org/Book https://schema.org/Book (edition) Here's works/editions in Wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q47461344 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q47461344 (work) ; https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3331189 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3331189 (edition) (e.g.: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q19320911 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q19320911 ) All of these are loosely based on the FRBR model in librarian science, where a work is a work, and an edition is called an "Expression": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bi... And yeah, there's no isbn-analog for series; each site has its own identifier. Also as a side-note, ISBNs are very inadequate as a unique identifier for an edition; there are frequent cases where an ISBN will be re-used for books with different covers (Dover classics does this a bunch); some modern books published in odd ways are not given an ISBN (e.g. all of these books: https://sorted.club/books/ https://sorted.club/books/ ); and, most importantly, books published before ISBNs went into effect (~1970) have _no way_ of being accessible when using ISBNs as a unique key.
- loosetypes 6y ago
  Wow, most of that is new to me. I appreciate you taking the time to reply.

cdrini 6y ago

Yep! They do. But the book-universe has largely landed on similar definitions for what a "work" is. E.g. here's GoodReads work id (in the url): https://www.goodreads.com/work/editions/69741-the-old-man-and-the-sea https://www.goodreads.com/work/editions/69741-the-old-man-an... Here's works/editions in schema.org: https://schema.org/CreativeWork https://schema.org/CreativeWork (work) ; https://schema.org/Book https://schema.org/Book (edition) Here's works/editions in Wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q47461344 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q47461344 (work) ; https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3331189 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3331189 (edition) (e.g.: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q19320911 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q19320911 ) All of these are loosely based on the FRBR model in librarian science, where a work is a work, and an edition is called an "Expression": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bi... And yeah, there's no isbn-analog for series; each site has its own identifier. Also as a side-note, ISBNs are very inadequate as a unique identifier for an edition; there are frequent cases where an ISBN will be re-used for books with different covers (Dover classics does this a bunch); some modern books published in odd ways are not given an ISBN (e.g. all of these books: https://sorted.club/books/ https://sorted.club/books/ ); and, most importantly, books published before ISBNs went into effect (~1970) have _no way_ of being accessible when using ISBNs as a unique key.

loosetypes 6y ago
Wow, most of that is new to me. I appreciate you taking the time to reply.