Maybe an obvious question about P1149 edit
CEC does it make sense to you that Wikidata:WikiProject Books uses the property Library of Congress Classification (P1149) at the level of written work (Q47461344) and not version, edition or translation (Q3331189)? I ask because it isn't immediately obvious to me whether an LC Classification number would always describe an LRM/RDA Work and not maybe sometimes in some kind of edge case an LRM/RDA Expression or Manifestation.
It seems like LC Class numbers most always describe works, yes. But... I'm trying to imagine an exception here. Would you let me know if you have any thoughts on this? Thank you!!
- Riesengrey No, it does not make sense to me that Wikidata:WikiProject Books uses the property Library of Congress Classification (P1149) at the level of written work (Q47461344) and not version, edition or translation (Q3331189). Library of Congress Classification (P1149) should really be included in Wikidata:WikiProject Books at both of these levels in my opinion. The single value constraint on Library of Congress Classification (P1149) also probably needs to go. Lots of things have many valid LCC numbers that are used by different libraries. For instance, Special Collections children's materials at our library are not classed under PZ, but under their respective literature numbers. The same edition of the same book in the general stacks will be given a PZ number. --Crystal Clements, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you CEC! I thought you might have some insights on this and I was right.
- I'm still trying to wrap my head around whether an LCC# (if we are thinking about a triple
<> <hasLcc#> "1234".) could describe an
lrm:Manifestation, but I just don't know LC Classification really at all. It sounds like this could vary in different cases. Riesengrey (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you're right, it can vary in different cases. If WikiProject Books only wants them assigned to works, I suppose the way they have things set up makes sense. Maybe they don't want to include/require classification numbers for other types of entities? Crystal Clements, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)