[open-bibliography] Comments on transformed BNB data

[Deliot, Corine]

@ Makx. Many thanks for your explanation. I think I've just demonstrated that "using different prefixes from common practice can create confusion" ;-)

@William, yes the 9999 comes from MARC practice. The data mapped to dc:date comes from the 008. For a continuing resource, the beginning date of publication is contained in 008/07-10 and 008/11-14 contain the characters 9999.

I have one last question about the comment made in a previous post about the URN:ISBN "additionally it is uncommon th uppercase the prefix there, and case does matter."

I've looked at RFC 2141 about the URN syntax
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2141.txt

In it, there are the following statements: 
"The leading "urn:" sequence is case-insensitive" (section 2); 
"Further, the Namespace Identifier is case insensitive, so that "ISBN" and "isbn" refer to the same namespace." (section 2.1).  

Under section 6, it is said that the following three statements are lexically equivalent: URN:foo:a123,456; urn:foo:a123,456, and urn:FOO:a123,456.

So in what way does case matter? Is it because it is common practice to lower case the prefix and applications have been built on that basis? 

Again many thanks for answering my question. I'm trying to learn.

Cheers

Corine


-----Original Message-----
From: Ben O'Steen [mailto:bosteen at gmail.com] 
Sent: 24 November 2010 14:47
To: William Waites
Cc: Deliot, Corine; List for Working Group on Open Bibliographic Data; Makx Dekkers; Thomas Baker
Subject: Re: [open-bibliography] Comments on transformed BNB data

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:
> 
> http://bnb.bibliographica.org/entry/GB5011841.rdf

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.

> 
> Cheers,
> -w



**************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/
 
The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2009/10 : http://www.bl.uk/knowledge
 
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook
 
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
 
*************************************************************************
 
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmaster at bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
 
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
 
*************************************************************************
 Think before you print