automating count of editions an editor contributes?

[vaarky]

"List all editions contributed by this editor" already has an automated way to list the editions in a one-per-line format by counting pages that link to a particular editor, e.g.:
* Verbum caro factum est (Anonymous) (← links)
* O Lord, in thee is all my trust (Thomas Tallis) (← links)
* My Lord, what a morning (Traditional) (← links)
* Slow fresh fount (William Horsley) (← links)
* Come gentle zephyr (William Horsley) (← links)

Yet the number of scores contributed by an editor on their editor page must be manually updated, e.g.:
Number of scores on CPDL: 5

It is frequently out of date, underreporting the number. It's not hard for an addscore volunteer to forget this step, and even easier for an editor adding their own score to not know to do this.

Could this be automated by using a line count from pages that link to an editor? The number would be far more accurate, and is one less step someone has to remember when adding a score. In UNIX shell scripting, this would be very easy, but I don't know how complicated it might be in DPL. Any ideas?

[carlos]

Could this be automated by using a line count from pages that link to an editor?

The answer is yes, but I don't think it's worth doing it now with the current works page format, as the result would not be accurate. Works pages are not related to editions in a 1-to-1 relationship, i.e., there are pages that contain multiple editions by a single editor, and the count would be underestimated in these situations.

If we decide for a works page that applies a solution similar to that used at IMSLP, then an accurate count will be possible.

[vaarky]

I think it would be more useful to have it count number of works submitted by an editor, counting each works page as one even if the editor submitted 4 different transpositions that are featured on that same works page.

Even if people don't agree, is it easy enough to make this an interim measure for the shorter run and then change the code when a better solution is developed? It would show more accurate numbers than what's there now, from what I've seen.

[CHGiffen]

I'm somewhat in agreement with Carlos on this issue. There are several different ways that more than one "edition" (with separate CPDL edition number) can appear on a page. Separate editions for transpositions is just one. Editions with and without keyboard reduction for a cappella works is another (no reduction works well for singers, but a necessarily longer edition for rehearsal keyboardist is a nicety)and other versions of full scores (eg. for works with accompaniment by several instruments) versus chorus scores (with or without keyboard versions of the instrumental accompaniment) abound at CPDL. An editor may supply different arrangements, might offer scores in different formats (eg. landscape and portrait orientation), or might post both condensed score and full score editions. Or, for a larger work (such as a mass, cantata, oratorio or song-cycle), there are often separate editions for each movement on a work page.

All these situations (and surely others I've overlooked) make the counting of editions somewhat awkward. Furthermore, there are significant variations from one editor to another (and within a single editor's output) of the extent to which such practices as those mentioned above actually occur. For example, one editor might submit a complete PDF of a mass along with PDFs for the individuals, counting each as a separate edition (even for a rather short mass) - and another editor might submit these (with or without the complete PDF, which is simply obtained by concatenating the PDFs for the individual movements) as a single edition. One editor might submit as separate editions several tranpositions of a work (which are pretty easy to generate) - and another editor might provide transpositions under the same edition number - and still others (with scores available via Scorch or some other similar viewer/downloader) provide a score under a single edition number where the user can choose any desired transposition. For accompanied works, one editor might supply separately numbered editions for each of several instruments, another might supply under one separately numbered edition all the instrumental parts, and yet another might include the instrumental parts with the choral score in a single numbered edition.

Such variances in the way editions are submitted and hence counted go way back through the lifespan of CPDL. They exist mainly because (1) there has been no clear CPDL policy what a CPDL numbered edition should be, (2) the evolution of mechanisms through which scores are submitted to CPDL (through the various add score forms that have been used since the CPDL site became the ChoralWiki site) makes for a wide variety of perceptions as to how editions (especially for some of the situations described above) should be submitted and numbered, and (3) individual editors have their own perceptions about what such policy should be and (in the absence of CPDL standards of policy) act accordingly.

I'm personally of the opinion that the time has come for a serious review of these issues with a view to formulating some sort of sensible policy. And, when done, everything should be on the table including possibly an entirely new "edition" or "cataloging" numbering/classification scheme that might supplant (or be added to) the current CPDL numbering scheme. For example, an edition might have or perhaps should have "subeditions" for such things as instrumental, choral parts, full scores, or simple transpositions - where there is no real separate editorial variance amongst the pieces. Also, probably some sort of distinction should be made between editions for which CPDL provides the PDF (or other files) on its own servers and those where the scores are only available on externally hosted servers - especially since CPDL has no real control over the continued availability of externally hosted scores.

There are other issues, too,perhaps somewhat tangential - such as copyright limitations that some submitters impose - that might impinge on cataloging and edition numbering schemes to be considered. But I think people get my drift: the mere counting of editions submitted by an editor is just the tip of a very large iceberg.

Chuck

[vaarky]

Thanks for all the bigger-picture ideas.

Subeditions in the numbering scheme makes a lot of sense to me. I can see numbering differently for hosted versus unhosted scores by adding an H (hosted) or an L or U (unhosted/linked), but I would hope it would still keep the consecutiveness. I.e. 4702U can change to 4702H if that editor's score for that work edition later becomes hosted, rather than 4702 having ben assigned to a different hosted work.

Can you say more about how you think type of copyright might interact with cataloguing number?

[CHGiffen]

The present CPDL numbers are not all that "consecutive" - especially since we have been recycling numbers that were assigned automatically by the addworks form to duplicate, malicious, and other "submissions" that were not used. Now that we are somewhat caught up with the backlog of unsed CPDL numbers, this is less noticeable now for recent runs of CPDL numbers, but rather glaring inconsistencies do still exist even if we don't perpetrate them anymore. That is why I mentioned the possibility of a completely different "cataloging" scheme ... and, if we want something that is truly chronological, then a CPDL numbering scheme (to replace the current one) might actually be date-of-submission (or date-of-posing) based.

Chuck

[carlos]

and, if we want something that is truly chronological, then a CPDL numbering scheme (to replace the current one) might actually be date-of-submission (or date-of-posing) based.

I like this idea, and it has the additional advantage that all CPDL numbers would be of the same length(six- or eight-digit long). Currently we have CPDL numbers that are lower than 1000 which, because of wiki indexing limitations, are not found via the Search feature.

[vaarky]

Excellent point. Surely we want 8-digit numbers so as to be Y3K compatible...

[CHGiffen]

... Currently we have CPDL numbers that are lower than 1000 which, because of wiki indexing limitations, are not found via the Search feature.

I have felt that our current CPDL numbers should be left-padded with zeroes to five digits, so that, for example, CPDL #342 would become CPDL #00342. Numerically, the two numbers are the same, and it would make searching and sorting on CPDL numbers much easier.

Because there could easily be ten or more (maybe as many as 100?) submissions in a day, we have to be careful in any date oriented scheme we might select, because we don't want too long a catalog identifier ("number") that takes into account multiple submissions on any given date. I've already thought quite a bit about this and have a few suggestions along these lines. However, I don't want the format of any catalog identifier to be all that we are looking at.

I'm not suggesting that we should pack into a catalog identifier myriad aspects of a work various aspect of a work (such as voicing, or genre, instrumentation, etc.), but there are some aspects that might be worth considering: hosted status (already mentioned), print medium (not all scores are PDFs, but might be PSs, GIFs or JPGs - or might require some sort of reader/viewer from which to print), other media (MIDI/MP3 sound files, engraving source files), use restrictions, etc. Some of these ideas/needs also point in other directions related to ways (data structures) for organizing our library "holdings" at CPDL.

Chuck