http://daia.gbv.de/?id=opac-de-960:isbn:3804685153&format=xml

http://daia.gbv.de/?id=opac-de-89:isbn:9781457715402&format=xml

Für die elektronische Ausgabe in der zweiten Abfrage plane ich den Service-Typ “online” einzuführen, sobald jemand weiß, wie aus den PICA+ Daten zweifelsfrei ermittelt werden kann, ob eine digitale Publikation auch außerhalb der Bibliotheks nutzbar ist.

Wer eher PHP-affin ist, kann auch zu phpDaia greifen. Auch phpDaia kommt mit einem Beispielscript für LBS-Kataloge daher. Es basiert (leider) ebenfalls auf massivem Screenscraping.

Wie ich auch gerade erst erfahren habe, gibt es für LBS4 (ab Version 2.8.2) auch eine Verfügbarkeits-API – zwar kein DAIA, aber im Vergleich zu PICA+ vielleicht einfacher zu verarbeiten und in DAIA zu mappen. Vielleicht ergibt sich mit dieser Schnittstelle ja noch die Möglichkeit, ein bisschen vom Screenscraping abzuweichen.

Mache ich da etwas falsch?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_department
owl:sameAs
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B0_%28%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%29
owl:sameAs
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehrstuhl
owl:sameAs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor#Named_professorships

(Quelle: https://twitter.com/#!/hauschke/status/159249839480258560 )

Und das ist wirklich nicht gut.

My extra Holding entity is on the conceptual level. Given the separation of the shared global generic descriptions of bibliographic material (whether there are three or two entities there) and the local holding information, there has to be a link between these two. I call this ‘Holding’, which can be considered a linking entity between two other entities in a conceptual model (like in an Entity Relationship Diagram). The Holding entity has extra value since we can have more than one item of a work/edition in a specific library.
I was trying to demonstrate that the FRBR model does not cater for this. In fact, as far as I’m concerned, we should split FRBR into a shared global model (with one, two or three entities, or whatever is best) and a local holdings model.

When implementing a conceptual model, especially in the relational database world (which is my original background) it is not uncustomary that entities on a conceptual level disappear as such and are embedded as links in a table, especially in the case of these pure intermediate entities, consisting only of external IDs (‘Foreign keys’) without any extra information of its own.
This is exactly what you show in your valid examples, as far as I can see.

My ‘Holding’ entity could also have been uniquely identified by the URI (or Primary key in ERD terms) of the Library plus the URI of the Manifestation (or Edition or Work or whatever thing we use in the shared global environment). I was just following the rule of thumb that everything should have its own URI, maybe somewhat too enthusiastically.

Anyway, in this case the link from an Item to the conceptual Holding, implemented in a relational database table would contain the IDs of the Library and the Manifestation/Edition, instead of the ID of the separate Holding record (which in turn would only contain the two IDs of the Library and the Manifestation/Edition).
Which is exactly what you do with the DAIA/SOBR model Item entity.

This is perfectly OK for physical local library items, but what about digital online stuff? I guess you would have something like this: ID of Article online + ID of Library. No ID of Item/Exemplar, because there isn’t any. But we do need availability and access conditions here, as you state in your Request for comments: final specification of DAIA post. How would you call this?