Question re categorisation

[pau1ie]

This is a question for Lee, but anyone else feel free to chip in.

In Johns educational archive I am still looking at the Mape tape 3. John has it under Anita Straker, presumably as she wrote many of the programs on the tape, though not all it appears. A couple of the programs are credited to Newman College. No author is listed. I am putting the publisher as Mape, which was an educational charity, presumably the programs were provided free, or for a small charge to schools. So how do I deal with the Newman College credit? I have just been putting it in the notes. Does this seem like the right thing to do?

[flaxcottage]

This is a difficult question that I've been thinking about myself. Often larger publishing houses took on the publishing of smaller concern's software.

From my own experience software I wrote for my own small publishing concern was marketed under the LVL label back in the day. We could still sell a small number via mail order but the bulk were distributed by LVL.

Newman College would fall into a similar category. Their titles have been variously published by MAPE, MEP, Cambridge Micro Software and Heineman to name but a few. One thought I had was to have an attribute 'Distributer' to cover this eventuality. The 'Publisher' attribute could then be reserved for the originating software house. That way the scope of the distribution of various titles could be indicated.

In my archive I grouped Anita Straker together simply because I was collecting her software. Most of her software was distributed FOC BITD. Latterly collections, such as her adventures, were marketed by other publishers. How successful they were I know not.

[pau1ie]

Thanks John

In that case I think I will just add both as publishers, as we can have more than one publisher.