User talk:Snipre/Test2

C2

To fill in the missing link between C2 and C1, one could create an item for the translation and two items for the first and second edition. Then first and second edition get linked to the translation item by edition or translation of (P629). Alternatively, instead of creating additional items, we could propose a new property to create links between editions of the same work/translation. --Pasleim (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pasleim: I see 2 problems:

• Your system is not systematic
• How do you deal to link the work for translation with the work for the original language ? How do you extract the original language ? Snipre (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

the translation is also linked by edition or translation of (P629) with the original work. --Pasleim (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pasleim: Then the label of edition or translation of (P629) is not more correct: you use a property which is designed to link work and edition to link work and work. We will need at least a new property to decouple translation from edition

If we have

* A1: a work in language L1

* A2: a work, translation of A1 in language L2

* B1: an edition of A1

* B2: an edition of A2, translated from B1

Then:

* B1 is an edition of A1

* B2 is an edition of A2

* B2 is an translation of B1

* A2 is an translation of A1

This cleaner than

* B1 is an edition/translation of A1

* B2 is an edition/translation of A2

* B2 is an translation of B1 We don't have a property for this relation at the moment

* A2 is an edition/translation of A1

The problem I see are the cases which was spotted by EncycloPetey: revised translations from old manuscrits which will lead to creation of a high number of work-edition pairs. Snipre (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)