Create links from values in 700n=96|97

[acka47]

curl http://lobid.org/resource?subject=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.org%2Flobid%2Fnwbib-spatial%23n
[{"@id":"http://lobid.org/resource?subject=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.org%2Flobid%2Fnwbib-spatial%23n","http://sindice.com/vocab/search#totalResults":14167}

Example:
<http://lobid.org/resource/HT016176022> <http://purl.org/dc/terms/subject> <http://purl.org/lobid/nwbib-spatial#n> .

Other examples:

• http://lobid.org/resource/BT000041593
• http://lobid.org/resource/BT000053187
• http://lobid.org/resource/BT000067443

This obviously has something to with the notation 97 which works similar to 99 but but indicates a "Kreis" instead of a "Stadt/Ortschaft". Examples:

HT016176022: 700n |a 97 |b Höxter <Kreis>
BT000041593: 700n |a 97 |b Coesfeld (Kreis)

The same goes for notation 96 and Regierungsbezirk. See http://lobid.org/resource?subject=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.org%2Flobid%2Fnwbib-spatial%23n&name=regierungsbezirk.

Examples:

• http://lobid.org/resource/BT000086193: 700n |a 96 |b Detmold (Regierungsbezirk)
• http://lobid.org/resource/HT003160768: 700n |a 96 |b Münster <Westfalen, Bezirk>

Desired outcome (for testing purposes)

Examples:

• http://lobid.org/resource/BT000041593 http://purl.org/dc/terms/spatial http://sws.geonames.org/2939944/ , http://linkedgeodata.org/triplify/relation62779 .
• http://lobid.org/resource/HT016176022 http://purl.org/dc/terms/spatial http://sws.geonames.org/3231882/ , http://linkedgeodata.org/triplify/relation62524 .
• http://lobid.org/resource/BT000086193 http://purl.org/dc/terms/spatial http://sws.geonames.org/2937935/ , http://linkedgeodata.org/triplify/relation73347 .
• http://lobid.org/resource/HT003160768 http://purl.org/dc/terms/spatial http://sws.geonames.org/2867539/ , http://linkedgeodata.org/triplify/relation63594 .

[acka47]

The labels aren't controlled, though. E.g. I find two forms for "Regierungsbezirk Münster:

• "Münster (Regierungsbezirk)" (BT000086194, BT000123904, BT000072794)
• "Münster <Westfalen, Bezirk>" (HT003160768, HT013486562)

[acka47]

BTW, there five "Regierungsbezirke" in NRW, see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regierungsbezirke_in_Nordrhein-Westfalen.

[acka47]

And there are 31 "Kreise", see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Kreise_und_kreisfreien_St%C3%A4dte_in_Nordrhein-Westfalen (minus the "kreisfreie Städte").

[acka47]

Interestingly, the triples with http://purl.org/lobid/nwbib-spatial#n are displayed in NWBib as "Raumsystematik: Niederschlag (142524)", see the examples:

• http://lobid.org/nwbib/BT000041593
• http://lobid.org/nwbib/BT000053187
• http://lobid.org/nwbib/BT000067443

As the data will be fixed anyway, I don't know whether the display has to be fixed before that. What do you thing, @fsteeg?

[fsteeg]

Hm, will we still have http://purl.org/lobid/nwbib-spatial#n values after the fix? Or will they get a number like the others?

[acka47]

These will be replaced by dct:spatial links to GeoNames and LinkedGeoData/OSm just like in #17. I missed to provide examples for the desired outcome. I will add them to the description.

[dr0i]

http://test.lobid.org/resource/BT000041593 links to http://linkedgeodata.org/triplify/relation157769 and not to the desired http://linkedgeodata.org/triplify/relation62779 . That's why:

http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/search/de/nrw/kreis%20Coesfeld yields other results than http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/search/de/nrw/Coesfeld%20kreis . First is correct. So we have to change the order of the literals residing in the catalog, because there is something like "Coesfeld (Kreis)"., not "Kreis Coesfeld".

[dr0i]

Come on now ! Nominatim was changed so that e.g. the "coesfeld" queries now yield totally crap. Gnn.

[dr0i]

The pull request above simplifies the use of the API so that lookups are ok again.

[dr0i]

Both mysql tables NrwPlacesGeonamesId and NrwPlacesOsmUrl are adjusted (deleted around 30% of the rows).

[dr0i]

Now, with this simpified API query and with enhancing the query with Kreis resp. Regierungsbezirk depending on value 96 resp. 97 the results are the expected ones (see #53 (comment) for the former disappointing status).

[acka47]

+1