wrong values in hasVersion and related

[TobiasNx]

e.g. HT000161712

  "hasVersion" : [ {
    "id" : "http://digitale-objekte.hbz-nrw.de/storage2/2019/04/06/file_4/8295425.pdf"
  } ],
  "related" : [ {
    "id" : "Inhaltsverzeichnis"
  } ],

[TobiasNx]

as discussed off-board woth @dr0i : I split this issue in two steps:

1. I will out-comment hasVersion and related-transformation. So that I can work on Add "tableOfContents" #1237 since they encompass tableOfContent information.
2. After solving Add "tableOfContents" #1237 I will rearrange hasVersion and related

[dr0i]

Deployed, see e.g. See e.g. https://alma.lobid.org/resources/search?q=HT000161712&format=json. Closed.

[TobiasNx]

Reopen for remodelling "hasVersion" and "related"

[TobiasNx]

@acka47

I am irritated by the definition of "hasVersion" as lobid is using it: e26a318

hasVersion contains andything from 655, subfields x or 3 if not a description, fulltext or tableOfContents. Improve definition of fulltextOnline by adding and deleting.

655 is only refering to electronic links in the metadata.

In contrast https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/#http://purl.org/dc/terms/hasVersion gives a much broader definition:

Definition	A related resource that is a version, edition, or adaptation of the described resource.
Comment	Changes in version imply substantive changes in content rather than differences in format. This property is intended to be used with non-literal values. This property is an inverse property of Is Version Of.

I think this does not fit conceptually. Do we need this very narrow link list at all? Or should we even remodel the hasVersion?

[acka47]

The issue where the current status regarding seeAlso, hasVersion and fulltextOnline have been discussed is #441. Maybe this helps for your understanding, @TobiasNx ?

[TobiasNx]

The values in 856## $3 which used to be 655 $3 and specifiy the content of the link are:

655 # L 3 Abstract
655 # L 3 Ausführliche Beschreibung
655 # L 3 Auszug
655 # L 3 Autorenbiografie
655 # L 3 Autorenkommentar
655 # L 3 Begleitmaterial
655 # L 3 Beschreibung für Bibliotheken
655 # L 3 Beschreibung für Buchhändler
655 # L 3 Beschreibung für die Lizenzabteilung
655 # L 3 Beschreibung für Lehrer/Erzieher
655 # L 3 Beschreibung für Lesegruppen
655 # L 3 Beschreibung für Leser
655 # L 3 Beschreibung für Marketing
655 # L 3 Cover
655 # L 3 Einführung/Vorwort
655 # L 3 Errata
655 # L 3 Erstes Kapitel
655 # L 3 Fragen für Lesegruppen
655 # L 3 Illustration
655 # L 3 Inhaltstext
655 # L 3 Inhaltsverzeichnis
655 # L 3 Kapitel
655 # L 3 Klappentext
655 # L 3 Konkurrierende Titel
655 # L 3 Kurzbeschreibung
655 # L 3 Literaturverzeichnis
655 # L 3 Pressetext
655 # L 3 Register
655 # L 3 Rezension
655 # L 3 Rezension (Auszug)
655 # L 3 Titelblatt
655 # L 3 Umschlagtext
655 # L 3 Unveröffentlichter Kommentar
655 # L 3 Volltext
655 # L 3 Werbliche Überschrift
655 # L 3 Zitat aus einer vorhergehenden Besprechung
655 # L 3 Zusätzliche Angaben

None of those has a specific refrence to versions of the publication. As discussed with @acka47 off-board I will leave out hasVersion for now.

[dr0i]

Reopened for I am unsure if it is completely solved re:

As discussed with @acka47 off-board I will leave out hasVersion for now.

while the title demands the fix of "hasVersion".

[TobiasNx]

Reopened for I am unsure if it is completely solved re:

As discussed with @acka47 off-board I will leave out hasVersion for now.

while the title demands the fix of "hasVersion".

yes the ticket can be closed, while working on this ticket we decided to drop "hasVersion" for now.