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?
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 SandersonInformation Standards AdvocateDigital Library Systems and ServicesStanford, CA 94305
--
Rob SandersonInformation Standards AdvocateDigital Library Systems and ServicesStanford, CA 94305