Need Advice Re: Updated Public Domain Book

[SigilBear]

I have a reference book in the public domain that I'm turning into an ebook. However, the book is very updated, so I'm writing a second book from scratch that's more thorough and up to date.

However, I also want to update the public domain book to some extent. The ebook version will be almost an exact copy of the public domain book except for some style changes. Also, I'm stripping the footnotes out of the bottom of each page and turning them into end notes at the end of each chapter.

I'm also going to insert a few comments where needed. For example, if the original book says "Vermont has no state bird," I might write, "Today, Vermont is represented by the hermit thrush."

Other than these comments, I'm not going to add any material except for some front matter (introduction, etc.) and an appendix that will probably feature current lists of symbols. Oh, yes - I'm also going to add more pictures to the book.

So here are my questions:

1) How should I describe this book? Should I call it a "revision," an "annotated, updated version," an "upgrade," etc.?

2) How should I describe myself - as the co-author, editor, etc.?

[Cinisajoy]

Did you see the Shearers have already updated this book 3 times since 1987?

[SigilBear]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Did you see the Shearers have already updated this book 3 times since 1987?

No, they haven't. Shearers wrote a different book.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by SigilBear

No, they haven't. Shearers wrote a different book.

So you looked at the one I posted in your other thread.

[SigilBear]

To anyone who views this thread: Please ignore the responses immediately following my initial post, which appear designed to derail this discussion.

There are FOUR books in question here...
'
1) The original book about this particular topic, which is in the public domain.

2) A second book about the same topic, which is copyrighted and doesn't really interest me because it's a crappy book to boot.

3) A "revision" of the public domain book that I'm working on.

4) A completely new book about the same topic that I'm working on.

If you go back and read my original post, it should be pretty easy to understand what I'm asking.

[Cinisajoy]

With all those changes, I would say editor.
And use annotated.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by SigilBear

To anyone who views this thread: Please ignore the responses immediately following my initial post, which appear designed to derail this discussion.

There are FOUR books in question here...
'
1) The original book about this particular topic, which is in the public domain.

2) A second book about the same topic, which is copyrighted and doesn't really interest me because it's a crappy book to boot.

3) A "revision" of the public domain book that I'm working on.

4) A completely new book about the same topic that I'm working on.

If you go back and read my original post, it should be pretty easy to understand what I'm asking.

No one is attempting to derail your thread.

1) You may not agree with the information - that's fine.
2) You may feel the other member has not read your post correctly - that's fine.

3) You may correct what you perceive as misinformation - and then move on.

But please don't accuse another member of personally trying to derail your thread, which is an unnecessarily contentious statement that serves no purpose except to inflame.

Thank you for your attention to this issue.


Don
(Moderator)

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by SigilBear

1) How should I describe this book? Should I call it a "revision," an "annotated, updated version," an "upgrade," etc.?

2) How should I describe myself - as the co-author, editor, etc.?

I suggest "annotated edition" and yourself as "editor"

[SigilBear]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I suggest "annotated edition" and yourself as "editor"

Thanks for the tip; it sounds good.

I might put something like "New Edition" on the front cover, then explain the details inside.

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I suggest "annotated edition" and yourself as "editor"

I agree. Annotated Edition + Editor would probably work best.

Originally Posted by SigilBear

I'm also going to insert a few comments where needed. For example, if the original book says "Vermont has no state bird," I might write, "Today, Vermont is represented by the hermit thrush."

I personally would leave the text exactly as it was originally, then add in your own Editor's footnote:

Spoiler:

<p>Vermont has no state bird,<a href="#fn20" id="ft20">[20]</sup></a> and here is extra example text.</p>

[...]

<p class="footnote"><a href="#ft20 id="fn20">[20]</a> Today, Vermont is represented by the hermit thrush.—Editor</p>

or you could decide to have multiple sets of concurrent footnotes (Original + Editor).

If the originals are numbered [1]-[99], you could make the Editor's be [a]-[z] or[*] [†] [‡] (depending on how many there are per chapter).

If you use an alternate numbering scheme, then you can forgo the usage of "—Editor" (it should be obvious that the second types of footnotes were added in the Annotated version).

Side Note: Back in 2013 I posted images + code + an example of an EPUB I worked on that had 3 distinct sets of footnotes (Original + Translator + Editor):

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...38#post2661838

Read everything Before/After in that post as well... I believe it has a lot of relevant info on digitizing Footnotes in ebooks with some in-depth examples. I even posted examples of a book that still holds my record for the MOTHER OF ALL FOOTNOTES (one went across 7 pages).

[SigilBear]

Good tip; I've been wrestling with footnotes. As you suggested, I could use letters for my footnotes; I might further highlight them with a colored background. Thanks.