We can currently cover these
one book + one review + one reviewer
one person writing a single review about a single book
one book + one review + multiple reviewers
two people collaboratively writing a single review about a single book
one book + multiple reviews + multiple reviewers
two people separately writing a single review each about the same single book
We can cover all of these with some rebuilding
multiple books + one review + one reviewer
one person writing a single review about two books
multiple books + multiple reviews + multiple reviewers
two people separately writing a single review each about the same two books
multiple books + one review + multiple reviewers
more than one person writing a single review about more than one book
one book + multiple reviews + one reviewer
one person writing two reviews about the same single book
multiple books + multiple reviews + one reviewer
one person writing two reviews, each about the same two books
Content types available for review
From Cliff
Books, websites, journals, plays, and conference proceedings. I could add database, map, performance, although most modern databases will be accessed via website (but not all?); many but perhaps not all maps will come in the form of an atlas; and perhaps "performance" is captured by play.
The Library of Congress provides a list of content types -- what it calls "resource description terms": here. But this is a slightly different sort of taxonomy than you are seeking? As a related matter, the LOC provides information on the MARC record system (here), but this system is fairly rigid, in part because it has been updated largely by layering new concerns on old systems of description, and in any event we don't need all the information that it seeks to record.
Let me put the matter instrumentally: we need some flexibility about content type, because not everything that we review is a book. A URL field is essential, but not everything will have an ISBN; some things will have an ISSN; some will have no such identifier. How we can best do this?
We can currently cover these one book + one review + one reviewer one person writing a single review about a single book
one book + one review + multiple reviewers two people collaboratively writing a single review about a single book
one book + multiple reviews + multiple reviewers two people separately writing a single review each about the same single book
We can cover all of these with some rebuilding multiple books + one review + one reviewer one person writing a single review about two books
multiple books + multiple reviews + multiple reviewers two people separately writing a single review each about the same two books
multiple books + one review + multiple reviewers more than one person writing a single review about more than one book
one book + multiple reviews + one reviewer one person writing two reviews about the same single book
multiple books + multiple reviews + one reviewer one person writing two reviews, each about the same two books
Content types available for review From Cliff Books, websites, journals, plays, and conference proceedings. I could add database, map, performance, although most modern databases will be accessed via website (but not all?); many but perhaps not all maps will come in the form of an atlas; and perhaps "performance" is captured by play.
The Library of Congress provides a list of content types -- what it calls "resource description terms": here. But this is a slightly different sort of taxonomy than you are seeking? As a related matter, the LOC provides information on the MARC record system (here), but this system is fairly rigid, in part because it has been updated largely by layering new concerns on old systems of description, and in any event we don't need all the information that it seeks to record.
Let me put the matter instrumentally: we need some flexibility about content type, because not everything that we review is a book. A URL field is essential, but not everything will have an ISBN; some things will have an ISSN; some will have no such identifier. How we can best do this?