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

Example API 2.0 files #79

Closed
acka47 opened this Issue Apr 29, 2016 · 9 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@acka47
Contributor

acka47 commented Apr 29, 2016

To give @dr0i some more guidance for working on API 2.0 issues it would be nice for him to have some examples of how the desired structure should look like.

@acka47 acka47 self-assigned this Apr 29, 2016

@acka47

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@acka47

acka47 Apr 29, 2016

Contributor

I managed to create three example files. They probably won't work as test files as I have probably made minor mistakes or might have forgot some changes but in general they should provide good guidance:

Note that this also is not the final state we should have in API 2.0. One problem with TT002234459.json I described in #8 (comment).

Contributor

acka47 commented Apr 29, 2016

I managed to create three example files. They probably won't work as test files as I have probably made minor mistakes or might have forgot some changes but in general they should provide good guidance:

Note that this also is not the final state we should have in API 2.0. One problem with TT002234459.json I described in #8 (comment).

@acka47

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@acka47

acka47 Nov 9, 2016

Contributor

Where needed, I adjusted the examples according to #38 (comment), see these revisions of the files:

Contributor

acka47 commented Nov 9, 2016

Where needed, I adjusted the examples according to #38 (comment), see these revisions of the files:

@dr0i dr0i changed the title from Example API 2.0 files to Example API 2.0 files Nov 18, 2016

@dr0i dr0i added ready review and removed ready labels Nov 18, 2016

@dr0i

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dr0i

dr0i Dec 8, 2016

Contributor

In the mentioned CT003012479 there is a dateOf property as part of a person entity. At the moment we use these life dates only for subjects (field 9[01234][27]-[-12].d). Should we want to take life dates for person entities which are no subjects also into account we should make a new issue.

Contributor

dr0i commented Dec 8, 2016

In the mentioned CT003012479 there is a dateOf property as part of a person entity. At the moment we use these life dates only for subjects (field 9[01234][27]-[-12].d). Should we want to take life dates for person entities which are no subjects also into account we should make a new issue.

@dr0i dr0i assigned acka47 and unassigned dr0i Dec 8, 2016

@acka47

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@acka47

acka47 Dec 9, 2016

Contributor

I removed the dates from the example.

Contributor

acka47 commented Dec 9, 2016

I removed the dates from the example.

@acka47 acka47 removed the review label Dec 9, 2016

@acka47 acka47 removed their assignment Dec 9, 2016

@dr0i

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dr0i

dr0i Dec 22, 2016

Contributor

Compared your files with the staging index. Difference:
In CT003012479 you listed 14216075X two times (quote right, as in the source http://lobid.org/hbz01/CT003012479 this person is also mentioned in field 800 as "Sprecher") whereas in http://test.lobid.org/resources/CT003012479#! there is only one mentioning of her. The two appearances of the person seems a bit superflous to me, though, because she is first roled as an actress and then as a contributor whereas , I think, every agent in the contribution-list is implicitly a contributor.

At the moment the 8xx-fields are not analyzed thus the role ("Sprecher") is ignored. I assume that that leads to the merged one mentioning of the person.
What shall we do? Take roles of 8xx-fields also into account? The person would then appear one time with two roles: actress and speaker.

Contributor

dr0i commented Dec 22, 2016

Compared your files with the staging index. Difference:
In CT003012479 you listed 14216075X two times (quote right, as in the source http://lobid.org/hbz01/CT003012479 this person is also mentioned in field 800 as "Sprecher") whereas in http://test.lobid.org/resources/CT003012479#! there is only one mentioning of her. The two appearances of the person seems a bit superflous to me, though, because she is first roled as an actress and then as a contributor whereas , I think, every agent in the contribution-list is implicitly a contributor.

At the moment the 8xx-fields are not analyzed thus the role ("Sprecher") is ignored. I assume that that leads to the merged one mentioning of the person.
What shall we do? Take roles of 8xx-fields also into account? The person would then appear one time with two roles: actress and speaker.

@dr0i dr0i added the question label Dec 22, 2016

@acka47

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@acka47

acka47 Dec 22, 2016

Contributor

Generally, I think it is ok to only list a person once when it is mentioned twice in the source but one role is just Contributor. I also agree that we shouldn't take into account 8xx fields.

But I don't think it is ok to list two roles in one contribution object. If a person has two roles in a work (e.g. "Sprecher" and "Darsteller") these are actually two contributions with different roles but not one contribution covering two roles.

Contributor

acka47 commented Dec 22, 2016

Generally, I think it is ok to only list a person once when it is mentioned twice in the source but one role is just Contributor. I also agree that we shouldn't take into account 8xx fields.

But I don't think it is ok to list two roles in one contribution object. If a person has two roles in a work (e.g. "Sprecher" and "Darsteller") these are actually two contributions with different roles but not one contribution covering two roles.

@dr0i

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dr0i

dr0i Dec 22, 2016

Contributor

These example files are a bit out of date, but as @acka47 just said we won't update these examples. I compared them with the staging data and find them fitting.
So +1 for me for closing, assigning @acka47 .

Contributor

dr0i commented Dec 22, 2016

These example files are a bit out of date, but as @acka47 just said we won't update these examples. I compared them with the staging data and find them fitting.
So +1 for me for closing, assigning @acka47 .

@acka47

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@acka47

acka47 Dec 22, 2016

Contributor

But I don't think it is ok to list two roles in one contribution object. If a person has two roles in a work (e.g. "Sprecher" and "Darsteller") these are actually two contributions with different roles but not one contribution covering two roles.

I posted this question to the Bibframe list and Ray Denenberg just confirmed what I said. Quoting Ray:

If you want to list two roles, e.g. “illustrator” and “author” for the
same person, the rule is, declare two separate Contribution resources.
Two or more role statements within the same Contribution resource should
occur only because you want to provide two different representations
(e.g. two different URIs) for the same role.

Contributor

acka47 commented Dec 22, 2016

But I don't think it is ok to list two roles in one contribution object. If a person has two roles in a work (e.g. "Sprecher" and "Darsteller") these are actually two contributions with different roles but not one contribution covering two roles.

I posted this question to the Bibframe list and Ray Denenberg just confirmed what I said. Quoting Ray:

If you want to list two roles, e.g. “illustrator” and “author” for the
same person, the rule is, declare two separate Contribution resources.
Two or more role statements within the same Contribution resource should
occur only because you want to provide two different representations
(e.g. two different URIs) for the same role.

@acka47

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@acka47

acka47 Dec 22, 2016

Contributor

Closing.

Contributor

acka47 commented Dec 22, 2016

Closing.

@acka47 acka47 closed this Dec 22, 2016

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