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