On 1/10/06, Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus.lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > For whom? For the coder or for the valued end-user? I guess the end-user who
> > uses 98% simple western names will appreciate if he doesn't have to key in
> > 37
> > display variants for each name.
>
> I just don't accept it's necessary to do more than one display name;
> ever. It's certainly not with any of my data at least (though the
> requirements for funky name handling are).
OK, I changed my mind. I do think it valuable to at least break apart
the primary pieces (though less so to break apart, say, a givenname
into pieces).
I guess I'd favor something like this (following from your's, Markus,
but modifying slightly):
agents: id, type, sort_key, display_name
names: agent_id, givenname, familyname, prefix, suffix, articular,
language, script
A few notes:
Yes, in my case, I think it's fine to put "J. Edgar" in the givenname
column and not worry about having a separate table for name parts.
YMMV.
I have agents just to include organizations (organtional authors,
publishers, legislative bodies, etc.). I suppose that could be a
separate ttable (?).
I moved language to the names because it is a property of a name.
This has me wiondeiring if having the sort and display names on the
agent might be a problem for some (international) contexts (??), even
if it is otherwise convenient.
I added the script just because there needs to be some way to get --
for those that need it -- name formatting of the form [transliterated
Western] ([original Kanji]). There may be a simpler way to do that;
not sure.
There proabably might also be some flag that indicates the sorting
algortihm to use?
Bruce
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id865&op=click
|
