Hi
My impression is that many museums (to be more accurate: their
management and curators) are not willing to share the catalogue
information in their content management system. This may be due to old
tradition from the time when curators and philologists kept their data
locked in their desk or under their bed or more reasonably that they
will not announce the content of their collections due to the risk of
theft. Still museums SHOULD supply the objects in their collection with
an uri to be used in case of theft etc.
Terms: 'Linked Data' is meaningful, 'Unlinked Data' describes the
current situation. 'Linked Open Data' is a pleonasm, since 'Linked
Closed/hidden Data' is meaningless. Even in the case when the linked
data is hidden, the data is open for the few.
Linked Open Data or Linked Data, I have no strong opinion. I don't find
the debate about who invented which term very central in this context.
Chr-E
On 31.05.2011 00:44, Leif Isaksen wrote:
Hi all
I think this is a slightly grey area
The idea of a non-open URI is essentially nonsensical (i.e. it's
impossible to prevent the citation of it, whether digitally or
otherwise). On the other hand its meaning should be entirely derived
from the things which are said about it - the URI per se is
semantically opaque. As a result I'm hard pressed to see significant
benefits to _pure_ Linked 'Closed' Data. It's like publishing a
dictionary (or gazetteer, or who's who, or catalogue) without any of
the definitions. Still, I can imagine situations where institutions
may want to provide some open data (enough to know what the heck any
of the URIs refer to, for instance), while keeping some behind closed
doors (such as the latest price evaluations). As such I think it may
be best to just use 'Linked Data' as the more ambiguous phrase. At the
same time, it does need to be made clear to institutions that some
level openness is an absolute requisite for this to have any point
whatsoever. And who knows? The sky may not fall on their head, after
all ;-)
Best
L.
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Regine Stein <r.st...@fotomarburg.de> wrote:
Of course the URI must be open to everybody.
But when the term LOD is used in the document it does refer more
generally to a descriptive dataset about the material object (to support
identification), or am I mistaken?
Regine
Am 30.05.2011 23:06, schrieb Christian-Emil Ore:
I understand Regine's concern. However, there is a pedagogical job to
do for CIDOC. The idea, as Max writes, is that the URI is open to
everybody eg to be used in Object-ID connections.
Chr-Emil
On 30.05.2011 22:48, Regine Stein wrote:
Martin,
I can't see a clear notion on "what the term is now", also from
other's comments.
Why ignoring serious sensibilities in the museum community - we are
aiming at their contribution, aren't we?
Regine
Am 30.05.2011 21:07, schrieb martin:
Dear Max, Regine, yes, I support the latter statement. The term is
Linked Open Data
now, and the Recommendation itself is only about the URIs for the
material object, not about what
and how much content should be revealed, not even about linking.
Therefore I prefer to
stay with the term as is.
Best,
Martin
On 5/30/2011 10:32 AM, Maximilian Schich wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
