Currently we see this RDA/RDF:
<> bf:adminMetadata [ a bf:AdminMetadata ;
bf:creationDate "2019-11-27"^^xsd:date ] .
...output as the following in BIBFRAME:
<> ns2:adminMetadata [ a ns2:AdminMetadata ;
ns2:creationDate "2019-11-27"@eng ] .
That is to say, the RDA.bf:creationDate is the same as the BIBFRAME.bf:creationDate.
However the BIBFRAME, derived from the RDA/RDF, was created on a later date.
Can the python/rml output the date of creation of the BIBFRAME specifically?
Worth nothing: this applies to the first transformation of a specific RDA/RDF dataset. When, or if, the dataset is transformed again to incorporate some edits, the date of that second transformation is no longer a bf:creationDate but a bf:changeDate. Although incorporating this fix for the April/May 2021 POST to Sinopia is overambitious, it may be something we want to remedy in future RDA-2-BIBFRAME.
Currently we see this RDA/RDF: <> bf:adminMetadata [ a bf:AdminMetadata ; bf:creationDate "2019-11-27"^^xsd:date ] . ...output as the following in BIBFRAME: <> ns2:adminMetadata [ a ns2:AdminMetadata ; ns2:creationDate "2019-11-27"@eng ] . That is to say, the RDA.bf:creationDate is the same as the BIBFRAME.bf:creationDate. However the BIBFRAME, derived from the RDA/RDF, was created on a later date. Can the python/rml output the date of creation of the BIBFRAME specifically?
Worth nothing: this applies to the first transformation of a specific RDA/RDF dataset. When, or if, the dataset is transformed again to incorporate some edits, the date of that second transformation is no longer a bf:creationDate but a bf:changeDate. Although incorporating this fix for the April/May 2021 POST to Sinopia is overambitious, it may be something we want to remedy in future RDA-2-BIBFRAME.