🚀 Biblissima publie son référentiel de cotes de manuscrits et imprimés anciens : plus de 162 000 cotes, chacune identifiée par un identifiant URI unique donnant accès à des données structurées #RDF #LOD. Ex. https://t.co/L2tnHKcIBO ⤵️ pic.twitter.com/mx4BFA33Qa
— Biblissima (@biblissima) March 5, 2020
Schön, dass Q186460 in Wikidata Saint-Mathieu-de-TrĂ©viers meint und in Biblissima Reims. Bibliothèque de Reims, Ms. 382 …
OpenEdition schlägt Ihnen vor, diesen Beitrag wie folgt zu zitieren:
Klaus Graf (10. März 2020). Biblissima mit eigenen Normdaten. Archivalia. Abgerufen am 17. Januar 2025 von https://doi.org/10.58079/cbas
Your censorship is very revealing! Thank you for giving that clue
It seems you don’t understand how Linked Data works (sorry for you), there is no statement that these two entities are to considered the same. Whenever possible, our classes, properties and items have been aligned to Wikidata to ensure interoperability between the two platforms. E.g.:
– https://data.biblissima.fr/entity/Q214799 = http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q55288915
– https://data.biblissima.fr/entity/P114 = http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P269
– https://data.biblissima.fr/entity/Q81888 = http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q157550
etc…
But of course, given the specialized domain, Biblissima has *a lot* of specificities (custom classes and properties), and we did not want to rely and depend exclusively on Wikidata, while still being interoperable with it as much as possible (along with other LOD datasets and authority files). We are confident that this is the right approach.