mirrors/bookwyrm
1
0
Fork 1
mirror of https://github.com/bookwyrm-social/bookwyrm.git synced 2024-06-09 00:39:30 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Update README.md

Browse source 
Re-writing the section about books because it was poorly worded and people were fixated on it on mastodon
This commit is contained in:
Mouse Reeve 2020-02-20 07:55:31 -08:00 committed by GitHub
parent 6c7f62ae37
commit cf895c8e99
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 1 additions and 6 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

7
README.md
View file

@ -44,12 +44,7 @@ The UI is all django templates because that is the default. You can replace it w
## Thoughts and considerations
### What even are books
The most complex part of this is knowing what books are which and who authors are. Right now I'm only using openlibrary.org as a
single, canonical source of truth for books, works, and authors. But it may be that user should be able to import books that aren't
in openlibrary, which, that's hard. So there's room to wonder if the openlibrary work key is indeed how a work should be identified.
The key needs to be universal (or at least universally comprehensible) across all fedireads servers, which is why I'm using an external
identifier controlled by someone else.
It's important for this application to function that books can be identified reliably across different instances. I'm using OpenLibrary.org data, which works well (thanks OpenLibrary!) and I'm treating it as canonical and not the copies in the local databases. This means that instances will be consistent, but the major downside is that if users want to modify books or add books that aren't available, they need to do it on OpenLibrary, rather than their own instance.
### Explain "review"
There's no actual reason to be beholden to simple 5 star reviews with a text body. Are there other ways of thinking about a review