[Crm-sig] Call for Comments

[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