New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

NPGRefObjXrefs #55

Closed
VladimirAlexiev opened this Issue Aug 9, 2016 · 8 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@VladimirAlexiev

VladimirAlexiev commented Aug 9, 2016

Important bibliographic info, having these fields:

  • ObjectID
  • RefObjXrefID
  • ReferenceID
  • Illustrated
  • Remarks
  • PageNumber
  • CatalogueNumber
  • FigureNumber

@kateblanch @si-npg: please also provide NPGReferences, since this table is not useful without that one.

  • What is Illustrated?
@si-npg

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

si-npg commented Aug 9, 2016

Is "npgbibreferences" not included?

@VladimirAlexiev

This comment has been minimized.

VladimirAlexiev commented Aug 10, 2016

Ah, I missed it because the file name is lowercase.
npgbibreferences has fields:

  • ReferenceID
  • Format
  • Title
  • SubTitle
  • PlacePublished
  • YearPublished

What is Illustrated?

@VladimirAlexiev

This comment has been minimized.

VladimirAlexiev commented Aug 11, 2016

@steds @workergnome @azaroth42 How do you like this modeling?

<npg/object/(ObjectID)> crm:P70i_is_documented_in <npg/object/(ObjectID)/reference/(RefObjXrefID)>.
<npg/object/(ObjectID)/reference/(RefObjXrefID)> a crm:E31_Document;
  crm:P106i_forms_part_of <npg/reference/(ReferenceID)>;
  crm:P3_has_note "(Remarks)";
  crm:P1_is_identified_by <npg/object/(ObjectID)/reference/(RefObjXrefID)/page>.

<npg/object/(ObjectID)/reference/(RefObjXrefID)/page> a crm:E42_Identifier;
  puml:label "similar for CatalogueNumber and FigureNumber";
  crm:P2_has_type <thesaurus/identifier/pageNumber>;
  crm:P3_has_note "(PageNumber)".

<npg/reference/(ReferenceID)> a crm:E31_Document, frbroo:F24_Publication_Expression;
  puml:label "TODO emit ReferenceID as crm:E42_Identifier?";
  crm:P2_has_type <thesaurus/reference/(Format)>;
  crm:P102_has_title <npg/reference/(ReferenceID)/title>, <npg/reference/(ReferenceID)/subtitle>;
  frbroo:R24i_was_created_through <npg/reference/(ReferenceID)/publication>.

<npg/reference/(ReferenceID)/title> a crm:E35_Title;
  crm:P2_has_type aat:300195168.

<npg/reference/(ReferenceID)/subtitle> a crm:E35_Title;
  crm:P2_has_type aat:NEW.

<npg/reference/(ReferenceID)/publication> a frbroo:F30_Publication_Event;
  crm:P7_took_place_at <npg/reference/(ReferenceID)/publication/place>;
  crm:P4_has_time-span <npg/reference/(ReferenceID)/publication/date>.

<npg/reference/(ReferenceID)/publication/place> a crm:E53_Place;
  crm:P87_is_identified_by <npg/reference/(ReferenceID)/publication/place/name>.

<npg/reference/(ReferenceID)/publication/place/name> a crm:E44_Place_Appellation;
  crm:P3_has_note "(PlacePublished)".

<npg/reference/(ReferenceID)/publication/date> a crm:E52_Time-Span;
  crm:P82_at_some_time_within "(YearPublished)"^^xsd:gYear.

image

@azaroth42

This comment has been minimized.

azaroth42 commented Sep 19, 2016

I think using CRM for modeling bibliographic references is using a sledgehammer to drive in a screw, when there's a whole toolbox full of different screwdrivers available. It's just the wrong tool for the job.

@caknoblock

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

caknoblock commented Sep 19, 2016

We discussed which ontology to use to model bibliographic data at the AAC meeting we held at the Getty and after a lengthy discussion we agreed to use CRM. We don’t have that much bibliographic data and I don’t think it plays an important role in the browse application, so let’s move on to more important issues.

On Sep 19, 2016, at 9:13 AM, Rob Sanderson notifications@github.com wrote:

I think using CRM for modeling bibliographic references is using a sledgehammer to drive in a screw, when there's a whole toolbox full of different screwdrivers available. It's just the wrong tool for the job.


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub #55 (comment), or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABB-qR0M3rHrK_iTv_2w6WqXEeyfxlP5ks5qrrSrgaJpZM4Jf_YI.

{"api_version":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/american-art/npg","title":"american-art/npg","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88-11e6-95fc-7290892c7bb5.png","avatar_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/15842166/7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/american-art/npg"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@azaroth42 in #55: I think using CRM for modeling bibliographic references is using a sledgehammer to drive in a screw, when there's a whole toolbox full of different screwdrivers available. It's just the wrong tool for the job."}],"action":{"name":"View Issue","url":"#55 (comment)! 9306"}}}

@azaroth42

This comment has been minimized.

azaroth42 commented Sep 19, 2016

Okay, if it's not important for AAC, then I won't stand in the way of getting something out there. But please let's not say it's a best practice to do this.

That said, we (The Getty) are not going to do it the wrong way like this. We do have a lot of bibliographic information, split across several different systems and all the different programs. You can imagine that telling the Research Institute that it has to use a terrible CRM mapping rather than established Library Linked Data ontologies is not going to go down well, particularly when the vendor is working on LOD straight from the catalog system.

For example:

@workergnome

This comment has been minimized.

workergnome commented Sep 21, 2016

Definitely interested in a best practice here. Being able to link to the works referenced here through WorldCat would be a fantastic feature for the Browse application, and would really showcase the potential of Linked Data.

I don't have a strong opinion on the mapping—I'm still trying to figure out Best Practices for this from my librarian friends, but I think finding the correct entity to get to via CIDOC, and then link out to an external reference for the full details would be great.

I think, much like Actors, it's probably up to the institutions to help us understand how much of the data they have for the reference is institution-specific and would be lost if not modeled, and how much of the data is there because they don't have a way to implement Linked Data, and so they have to duplicate data from the true primary source.

@VladimirAlexiev

This comment has been minimized.

VladimirAlexiev commented Sep 23, 2016

@azaroth42 Which is the established bib ontology in your opinion? Maybe a year ago I asked a question on stackoverflow (or was it answers.semanticweb.org) titled "War of the bibliographic ontologies" :-) Would be nice if you post there.
Also we had an impromptu vote re DBpedia Citations at dbpedia/mappings-tracker#79

The various alternatives include BIBO, RDAinfo, CITO and family, SchemaBibEx, BibFrame, FRBRoo.

  • I like SchemaBibEx (bib.schema.org) but haven't tried it on a big/real dataset. Eg AATA has many weird and wonderful fields (eg Figure number)
  • for GVP we used BIBO but GVP has only a couple fields for sources
  • there were plans to map AATA to FRBRoo.
  • I contributed some AATA analysis here: https://share.getty.edu/display/ITSLODAATA/AATA+Notes (June 2016)

@bsnikhila bsnikhila closed this Apr 30, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment