[Crm-sig] Call for Comments

Leif Isaksen leifuss at googlemail.com
Tue May 31 01:44:11 EEST 2011

Hi all

I think this is a slightly grey area

The idea of a non-open URI is essentially nonsensical (i.e. it's
impossible to prevent the citation of it, whether digitally or
otherwise). On the other hand its meaning should be entirely derived
from the things which are said about it - the URI per se is
semantically opaque. As a result I'm hard pressed to see significant
benefits to _pure_ Linked 'Closed' Data. It's like publishing a
dictionary (or gazetteer, or who's who, or catalogue) without any of
the definitions. Still, I can imagine situations where institutions
may want to provide some open data (enough to know what the heck any
of the URIs refer to, for instance), while keeping some behind closed
doors (such as the latest price evaluations). As such I think it may
be best to just use 'Linked Data' as the more ambiguous phrase. At the
same time, it does need to be made clear to institutions that some
level openness is an absolute requisite for this to have any point
whatsoever. And who knows? The sky may not fall on their head, after
all ;-)



On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Regine Stein <r.stein at fotomarburg.de> wrote:
> Of course the URI must be open to everybody.
> But when the term LOD is used in the document it does refer more
> generally to a descriptive dataset about the material object (to support
> identification), or am I mistaken?
> Regine
> Am 30.05.2011 23:06, schrieb Christian-Emil Ore:
>> I understand Regine's concern. However, there is a pedagogical job to
>> do for CIDOC. The idea, as Max writes, is that the URI is open to
>> everybody eg to be used in Object-ID connections.
>> Chr-Emil
>> On 30.05.2011 22:48, Regine Stein wrote:
>>> Martin,
>>> I can't see a clear notion on "what the term is now", also from
>>> other's comments.
>>> Why ignoring serious sensibilities in the museum community - we are
>>> aiming at their contribution, aren't we?
>>> Regine
>>> Am 30.05.2011 21:07, schrieb martin:
>>>> Dear Max, Regine, yes, I support the latter statement. The term is
>>>> Linked Open Data
>>>> now, and the Recommendation itself is only about the URIs for the
>>>> material object, not about what
>>>> and how much content should be revealed, not even about linking.
>>>> Therefore I prefer to
>>>> stay with the term as is.
>>>> Best,
>>>> Martin
>>>> On 5/30/2011 10:32 AM, Maximilian Schich wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Crm-sig mailing list
>>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list