I suggest that this type should be merged with author. All the people here are authors and their published works are only different in that they are summaries of original works. The type may be better used to represent people who review works through peer-review or similar process. That's how I wanted to use it anyway. To capture the information currently included in this type you could add a Boolean property of "Original source?", or something similar, to the Published work type.
Discussions on Reviewer
-
-
-
I posted a set of proposed changes to the publishing domain that might include this change last week (among other things, I want to roll most of the types that are similar to author together). My proposed schema has been subsequently wiped from sandbox, so it's not visible now. I'm hoping to make some adjustments to it and re-post it today (if not, it might have to wait until after the holidays). I'd recommend creating a new type for peer-reviewers, though. Partly because we'll want to be able to migrate the data cleanly to the new types (rather than having to sort out which person is what kind of reviewer), and partly because peer-reviewer would presumably link directly to the work reviewed, rather than to a published review.
-
Heh. I meant to say that "I posted a set of proposed changes to the data-modeling and developers mailing lists last week".
-
I saw that. It looks good! I did not realize that this type was getting rolled into authorship during that refactoring. It looked to me like it would be linked instead.
I agree that peer-reviewer should be a different type than other reviewers but I was thinking of going about it another way where peer-reviewer is a type of editor. They are not really authors. Also, the reviewer described in this discussion topic is an author of a type of published work (i.e., review).
-
I agree that peer-reviewer is more of an editor than an author. A peer-reviewer does not create content but critiques someone else's work (not that I'm trying to make it sound bad...). ;)
-
