You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am wondering what the best approach is to resolve an ELI URL to extract the metadata. A possible use case would be display metadata of the legislation in a web frontend, such as the description.
This is already a long standing issue. I reached out the Cellar team responsible for the publication of the ELIs.
On the question: Are there any plans for making the CELLAR minted ELIs dereferenceable? The reponse is "Indeed, we have issues with ELI URIs and are working on it. We are currently doing some tests to fix it, and will come back to you."
I also questioned for alternatives and possibilities to get to the RDF representations of the ELIs.
They reponded with the following approach:
replace the “/” with “:” on the ELI identifier. For example the URI http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/138/oj is turned into by http://publications.europa.eu/resource/eli/reg_impl:2023:138:oj .
This version results in HTML. For the RDF representation HTTP headers must be set. For instance: use the Accept header application/rdf+xml;notice or application/rdf+xml;notice=non-inferred
DCAT-AP High Value Datasets introduces the property
dcatap:applicableLegislation
, which should be populated with ELI URLs, such as http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/138/oj.I am wondering what the best approach is to resolve an ELI URL to extract the metadata. A possible use case would be display metadata of the legislation in a web frontend, such as the description.
However, it seems that the ELI metadata is only available as microdata as described here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli-register/technical_information.html This means parsing means to include to download the HTML and process it with an RDFa parser. I did this with a browser plugin: example.txt
For me this seems very complicated. It would be better to just get the RDF maybe via content negotiation. Or do I overlook something here?
I am very much interested in opinions. Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: