search

hbz / lobid

Linking Open Bibliographic Data
https://lobid.org/
Eclipse Public License 2.0
15 stars 4 forks source link

Add RPB Sachgruppen to RDF #298

Closed acka47 closed 8 years ago

acka47 commented 8 years ago

The notations are found in 700l alongside the notations from the RPB classification scheme. Example source (snippet) to be added as soon as the MAB XML is there again.

acka47 commented 8 years ago

Do we need specific properties for RPB Sachgruppen and classification scheme? For NWBib we have http://purl.org/lobid/lv#nwbibsubject and http://purl.org/lobid/lv#nwbibspatial.

acka47 commented 8 years ago

Depends on https://github.com/lobid/vocabs/issues/46.

acka47 commented 8 years ago

Example source from test file HT018895767 (snippet):

<datafield tag="700" ind1="l" ind2="1">
  <subfield code="a">rpb784010</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="700" ind1="l" ind2="1">
  <subfield code="a">120</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="700" ind1="l" ind2="1">
  <subfield code="a">330</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="700" ind1="l" ind2="1">
  <subfield code="a">106</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="700" ind1="l" ind2="1">
  <subfield code="a">139</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="700" ind1="l" ind2="1">
  <subfield code="a">130</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="700" ind1="l" ind2="1">
  <subfield code="a">131</subfield>
</datafield>

I suggest adding a specific RPB property (http://purl.org/lobid/lv#rpbsubject) for listing entries from both schemes. In this case it would look like this (for API 2.0):

{
   "id":"http://lobid.org/resources/HT018895767#!",
   "rpbsubject":[
      "http://purl.org/lobid/rpb#n784010",
      "https://w3id.org/lobid/rpb2#n120",
      "https://w3id.org/lobid/rpb2#n330",
      "https://w3id.org/lobid/rpb2#n106",
      "https://w3id.org/lobid/rpb2#n139",
      "https://w3id.org/lobid/rpb2#n130",
      "https://w3id.org/lobid/rpb2#n131"
   ]
}

@jschnasse @aquast Is this a good solution?

acka47 commented 8 years ago

Another question: Would it be enough to have it in data 2.0?

acka47 commented 8 years ago

Would it be enough to have it in data 2.0?

I just talked to @jschnasse and he needs it in 1.0. I will start with implementing it for 2.0, though.

acka47 commented 8 years ago

When https://github.com/hbz/lobid-resources/pull/78 we have implemented the changes for API 2.0. What's missing is lobid 1.0 where edoweb actually needs the changes. Assigning @fsteeg to implement this for API 1.0.

fsteeg commented 8 years ago

Deployed to production, closing. See rpbSubject in:

http://lobid.org/resource?format=full&id=HT018895767