Alma-Fix: Invalid Data

[TobiasNx]

I identified three invalidities in the transformed ALMA-Fix-Data:

alma-fix/990197023370206441.json failed test
[ { instancePath: '/type',
    schemaPath: 'type.json/minItems',
    keyword: 'minItems',
    params: { limit: 2 },
    message: 'must NOT have fewer than 2 items' } ]

The transformation does not produce a second type (MARC source):

lobid-resources/src/test/resources/alma-fix/990197023370206441.json

Lines 119 to 120 in 1ba224d

	"type" : [ "BibliographicResource" ],
	"id" : "http://lobid.org/resources/990197023370206441#!"

---

Free tags do not produce a fitting type-Value (MARC source):

lobid-resources/src/test/resources/alma-fix/99370746459806441.json

Lines 78 to 79 in 1ba224d

	"type" : [ "Keyword" ],
	"source" : {

Free tags are no concepts.

---

Since we need to deal with POR/HOL/ITM/MDB etc. we added them as additional type-Value in hasItem, this creates invalid results. (MARC source)

lobid-resources/src/test/resources/alma-fix/99371449208306441.json

Lines 95 to 96 in 1ba224d

	"type" : [ "Item", "MBD" ],
	"heldBy" : {

We need to remodel this. See: #1373

@acka47 any suggestions for quick fixes. especially for the first and the second problem.

[acka47]

The transformation does not produce a second type (MARC source):

lobid-resources/src/test/resources/alma-fix/990197023370206441.json

Lines 119 to 120 in 1ba224d

	"type" : [ "BibliographicResource" ],
	"id" : "http://lobid.org/resources/990197023370206441#!"

Looking at the ZDB RDF, there is an additional type Periodical. isn't there any information in the MARC21 source data so that we can also add type Periodical? Doing a bit of research, it looks like this is encoded in 008, see https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd008s.html.

Free tags do not produce a fitting type-Value (MARC source):

lobid-resources/src/test/resources/alma-fix/99370746459806441.json

Lines 78 to 79 in 1ba224d

	"type" : [ "Keyword" ],
	"source" : {

Free tags are no concepts.

Currently, we do not have any type on the free tags, see e.g. http://lobid.org/resources/TT002234459.json but I agree that it would make sense to add a type. We could use a new type Keyword or Tag and in the JSON-LD context map it to http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q658349, e.g.:

{
   "@contect":{
      "Tag":{
         "@id":"http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q658349"
      }
   }
}

Since we need to deal with POR/HOL/ITM/MDB etc. we added them as additional type-Value in hasItem, this creates invalid results. (MARC source)

lobid-resources/src/test/resources/alma-fix/99371449208306441.json

Lines 95 to 96 in 1ba224d

	"type" : [ "Item", "MBD" ],
	"heldBy" : {

We need to remodel this. See: #1373

I am not familiar with POR/HOL/ITM/MDB, what they stand for and how they differ. Generally, I see two options:

1. See whether already RDF types exist for these item types and then map them to those and add the types to the JSON-LD context
2. Define a property itemType in lobid-vocabs and put the value from POR/HOL/ITM/MDB there.

[TobiasNx]

Duplicate #1340