Hi Max and all,
To my understanding the recommendation simply does not make any
assumption about openness, but deals with identification in the Linked
Data field.
It btw even notes explicitly (6.) "that such a service is not mandatory
for the URI to be valid". Having URIs for museum objects available for
everybody to cite is different from publishing the information about
these objects as LOD...
I fully agree with Richard saying "Much as I would like all museum LD to
be LOD, I wouldn't want to discourage good LD practice..."
And the issue is more complex than just open vs. non-open: What is open?
Is any CC-license "open enough"? Or is CC0 (=public domain) mandatory to
be labelled as LOD?
So this is exactly what I'd prefer to avoid: to mix up these two very
different topics of identification and openness in the recommendation.
Best, Regine
Am 30.05.2011 09:32, schrieb Maximilian Schich:
Hi Regine and all,
In principle, I think, we can all imagine Linked Data that is non-open -
and in house museum inventory databases might be so very likely. But the
whole point about publishing identifier URIs for museum objects is that
they are available for everybody to cite. So indeed in our case the data
should be Linked Open Data.
Also - notwithstanding my high regard of TBL - just because a concept
was introduced by him does not make it more letigimate, just as building
reconstructions do not become more realistic if we can attribute them to
Andrea Palladio.
Best, Max
Dr. Maximilian Schich
http://www.schich.info
http://artshumanities.netsci2011.net
Am 29.05.11 18:13, schrieb Regine Stein:
Dear Martin, dear all,
Apologies for the very late comment (however just in time for the
deadline May 30th ;-))
I have one simple recommendation: Please replace "Linked Open Data" by
"Linked Data" throughout the whole documents (and URL).
First because Linked Data is the original term as it was invented by TBL
if I'm not mistaken.
Second because there is a serious debate ongoing on what "Open" means in
Linked Open Data.
E.g. according to the current view in Europeana office it means that all
data to be published as LOD has to be public domain whereas many
representatives of Europeana museum projects do question this requirement.
Though this might appear to be a Europeana specific discussion I think
there is no point for CIDOC to potentially cause confusion about the issue.
Best wishes
Regine
Am 21.03.2011 17:02, schrieb martin:
Dear All,
Your comments on http://www.cidoc-crm.org/URIs_and_Linked_Open_Data.html
will be most welcome!
Best,
Martin
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
