Print

Print


The first file you point out is in Turtle [1], while the newer one is RDF/XML [2].  It's unusual for RDF/XML to be _less_ verbose than Turtle, but that's apparently the case here (or there is a lot of data missing).

-Ross.
1. http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/
2. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/

On Apr 24, 2013, at 7:47 AM, Bernhard Eversberg <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Great. But:
> 
> In the previous version (Oct. 2012), a record looked like this:
> (unpacked file:  8.5 GB)
> 
> <http://d-nb.info/gnd/4099395-4>
>      a       gnd:Work ;
>      gnd:firstAuthor <http://d-nb.info/gnd/118628852> ;
>      gnd:geographicAreaCode
> <http://d-nb.info/standards/vocab/gnd/geographic-area-code#XA-DE> ;
>      gnd:gndIdentifier "4099395-4" ;
>      gnd:gndSubjectCategory
>              <http://d-nb.info/vocab/gnd-sc#12.2p> ;
>      gnd:languageCode <http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/iso639-2/ger> ;
>      gnd:oldAuthorityNumber
>              "(DE-588c)4099395-4" ;
>      gnd:preferredNameForTheWork
>              "Der @Sturz" .
> 
> In the new version, the same record looks like this:
> (unpacked file:  5.9 GB)
> 	<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://d-nb.info/gnd/4099395-4">
> 		<gnd:gndIdentifier>4099395-4</gnd:gndIdentifier>
> 		<gnd:oldAuthorityNumber>(DE-588c)4099395-4</gnd:oldAuthorityNumber>
> 		<gnd:preferredNameForTheWork>Der Sturz</gnd:preferredNameForTheWork>
> 		<gnd:firstAuthor rdf:resource="http://d-nb.info/gnd/118628852" />
> 		<gnd:gndSubjectCategory rdf:resource="http://d-nb.info/vocab/gnd-sc#12.2p" />
> 		<gnd:geographicAreaCode rdf:resource="http://d-nb.info/standards/vocab/gnd/geographic-area-code#XA-DE" />
> 		<gnd:languageCode rdf:resource="http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/iso639-2/ger" />
> 		<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://d-nb.info/standards/elementset/gnd#Work" />
> 	</rdf:Description>
> 
> Why the difference, and where are these formats documented?
> (One little but annoying difference is the presence/absence of the
> non-filing indicator in the title field.)
> 
> Apart from these, there exists the GND-MARC format. The download would
> be a lot more compact in MARC. Why not use this for downloading, or
> provide it as an alternative?
> 
> B.Eversberg