search

hbz / lobid-resources

Transformation, web frontend, and API for the hbz catalog as LOD
http://lobid.org/resources
Eclipse Public License 2.0
7 stars 7 forks source link

Remodel `bibliographicCitation`? #1444

Closed TobiasNx closed 1 year ago

TobiasNx commented 2 years ago

https://github.com/hbz/lobid-resources/blob/2ae7b86259115ee3fa8693e3ba16ebda2739ca54/src/main/resources/alma/fix/otherFields.fix#L111-L131

Should we remodel bibliographicCitation? so it fits the broader concept? Or only keep it for articles?

acka47 commented 2 years ago

This is important for NWBib and RPB and changing it would mean an API break and some adjustments to the UI. Furthermore, we are following the DINI AG KIM "Empfehlung für die RDF-Repräsentation bibliografischer Daten" here, see https://wiki.dnb.de/display/DINIAGKIM/MARC+21-RDF-Mapping. Closing.

acka47 commented 2 years ago

(I understand your discomfort with this solution, though.)

TobiasNx commented 2 years ago

Then we should only keep it for articles right? Since we have no type article at the moment. I do need to reopen it and filter it.

TobiasNx commented 1 year ago

@acka47 Should only articles have bibliographicCitation or all records that have containedIn? In ALEPH I found this: http://lobid.org/resources/HT018627673#! is this wrong?

acka47 commented 1 year ago

Should only articles have bibliographicCitation or all records that have containedIn? In ALEPH I found this: http://lobid.org/resources/HT018627673#! is this wrong?

This looks like a very special case and we should probably keep the bibliographicCitation as also the type Book could be incorrect. We won't know without further investigation but it probably only affects a tiny part of the data so that this has very low priority.

TobiasNx commented 1 year ago

Closing for now.