[open-bibliography] Comments on transformed BNB data
bosteen at gmail.com
Wed Nov 24 14:46:42 GMT 2010
On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 15:44 +0100, William Waites wrote:
> * [2010-11-24 14:26:23 +0000] Ben O'Steen <bosteen at gmail.com> écrit:
> ] On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 13:26 +0000, Deliot, Corine wrote:
> ] > I'm sorry but I still don't understand. I've looked at
> ] > http://bnb.bibliographica.org/entry/GB8102507, which I believe is the
> ] > RDF/XML you were pointing me to.
> That one doesn't appear to have a dces:date. This one does:
Ah, it's in dces:date :)
> ] Also, in examining the example I linked to above, I noticed it created
> ] an End of the interval of "9999", even though the original shows an
> ] undefined end point, in this case defined by "[2000?]-". I think this is
> ] a situation where omission is far better than the use of a value like
> ] 9999. The interval makes perfect sense upon removal of the hasEnd node
> ] IMO.
> I certainly agree. This is in the data we received, right? I'm pretty
> sure I haven't seen anything we do that invents arbitrary dates.
Yep, I meant the original conversion from MARC to the BL's exported RDF,
sorry for any confusion.
More information about the open-bibliography