Skip to content
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

Implement search functionality with API 2.0 #262

Closed
acka47 opened this issue Feb 25, 2016 · 6 comments
Closed

Implement search functionality with API 2.0 #262

acka47 opened this issue Feb 25, 2016 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@acka47
Copy link
Contributor

acka47 commented Feb 25, 2016

This would solve the following issues reported by I.N. on 2015-12-02:

1.Schlagwortrecherche: Das Abschneiden derUnterfelder des Bevorzugen
Namens wirkt sich in Abhängigkeit davon aus, ob abweichende Namensformen
erfasst wurden oder nicht. Abweichende Namensformen werden im Lobid-Feld
„subjectLabel“ mit in die Recherche eingebunden, so dass abgeschnittene
Formen beim Bevorzugten Namen kompensiert werden können. So wird ein
Titel als Treffer gefunden, wenn das untergeordnete Element (=
abgeschnittenes Unterfeld des Bevorzugten Namens) als Verweisungsform im
GND-Feld 410 bzw. 451 eingetragen wurde.

Beispiel für korrekte Treffer, weil Verweisungsformen die abgeschnittene
Namensform kompensieren: Heinrich-Heine-Institut | b Rheinisches
Literaturarchiv

Beispiel für fehlende Treffer, weil Verweisungsformen fehlen:
LWL-Archivamt für Westfalen | b Westfälisches Literaturarchiv

3.Körperschaftsrecherche: Bei der Körperschaftsrecherche wird im
Lobid-Feld „contributingCorporateBodyLabel“ gesucht. Hier wirkt sich das
Fehlen der Unterfelder (im Beispiel des mittleren Elements) negativ aus.
Da die Elemente des Unterfeldes fehlen, wird kein Treffer gefunden.

Beispiel: KS-Recherche mit „Landschaftsversammlung Fraktion“ oder
„Landschaftsversammlung Bündnis“ oder „Landschaftsversammlung Grünen“
ergibt keinen Treffer

@fsteeg
Copy link
Member

fsteeg commented Feb 25, 2016

If I'm not mistaken, this depends on hbz/lobid-rdf-to-json#24 (correct, @acka47?)

@acka47
Copy link
Contributor Author

acka47 commented Feb 25, 2016

If I'm not mistaken, this depends on hbz/lobid-rdf-to-json#24 (correct, @acka47?)

Yes, and another issue to created based on hbz/lobid-resources#10 re. indicating contributor role via "role"+ MARC relator code instead of using the relator code as property...

@fsteeg
Copy link
Member

fsteeg commented Feb 26, 2016

Also depends on #83

@fsteeg
Copy link
Member

fsteeg commented Mar 7, 2016

As a heads-up, in particular for @acka47:

I don't think it's realistic or even advisable to implement this for nwbib-launch, which is in about 1 month:

  1. It depends on another large issue: Improve automatic mapping of NWBib classification to wikidata #83 (which is actually 'Implement geodata inclusion for data 2.0')
  2. We have a few smaller nwbib-launch issues to be implemented before even starting work on Improve automatic mapping of NWBib classification to wikidata #83
  3. Switching search to data/API 2.0 is a considerably larger step than the details switch we performed about three weeks ago (df35c9f), and we're still fixing bugs caused by that (last one today, 2b6a0b0). Given that experience, even if it was possible to actually implement this until the launch (which I don't think so, given it requires Improve automatic mapping of NWBib classification to wikidata #83 and API that does not even exist), it would certainly cause severe issues in the newly launched nwbib

Instead, I think it makes sense to start working on this after the launch, at http://beta.nwbib.de. This is in line with what we decided in our planning meeting: 'Mai: NWBib-Anpassungen API 2.0 (Fabian)'

Removing nwbib-launch label for this and #83.

@fsteeg
Copy link
Member

fsteeg commented Jan 3, 2017

Depends on #262

@fsteeg fsteeg removed the ready label Mar 7, 2017
@acka47 acka47 modified the milestones: NWBib 2.0, Vorbereitung VDL-Integration Oct 9, 2017
@fsteeg
Copy link
Member

fsteeg commented Oct 18, 2017

Issue #163 contains more up-to-date info and context about this. Closing.

@fsteeg fsteeg closed this as completed Oct 18, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants