Print

Print


No, clearly anyone can do whatever they want.  The claim that I'm making is
that it is a best practice to make assertions via resources that you
control, and that without inverse relationships this becomes much harder.
I'm not preventing you from claiming any arbitrary triple via a document at
any arbitrary URI.  I'm just asking that inverse relationships be defined
so that institutions that /do/ want to follow the best practice are able
to.  There's no opportunity cost, and a lot of benefit.

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Jeff Young <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Are you really saying "you MUST make assertions via resources that you
> control?" Who made that rule?
>
>
>
> On Apr 28, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> Okay, okay, please read:  you make assertions about entities via resources
> that you control, and dereferencing the entity's identity results in the
> client retrieving the resource.
>
> [To be intentionally vague as to 200/303 to avoid http-range-14]
>
> :)
>
> Rob
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I disagree with this statement:
>>
>> "In Linked Data, you make assertions about your own resources, and
>> dereferencing the resource returns the description of it."
>>
>> A linked data URI should identify real things. I am a person, not "your
>> resource".
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 28, 2015, at 6:10 PM, Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > In Linked Data, you make assertions about your own resources, and
>> dereferencing the resource returns the description of it.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Information Standards Advocate
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305
>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305