[Crm-sig] Call for Comments

Regine Stein r.stein at fotomarburg.de
Mon May 30 15:37:14 EEST 2011


Hi Max and all,

To my understanding the recommendation simply does not make any 
assumption about openness, but deals with identification in the Linked 
Data field.
It btw even notes explicitly (6.) "that such a service is not mandatory 
for the URI to be valid". Having URIs for museum objects available for 
everybody to cite is different from publishing the information about 
these objects as LOD...

I fully agree with Richard saying "Much as I would like all museum LD to 
be LOD, I wouldn't want to discourage good LD practice..."

And the issue is more complex than just open vs. non-open: What is open? 
Is any CC-license "open enough"? Or is CC0 (=public domain) mandatory to 
be labelled as LOD?

So this is exactly what I'd prefer to avoid: to mix up these two very 
different topics of identification and openness in the recommendation.

Best, Regine


Am 30.05.2011 09:32, schrieb 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
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20110530/3095e673/attachment.htm 


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list