Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals

Yes, that should be sufficient.

Thanks,Milorad




>________________________________
> From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
>To: Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> 
>Cc: public-lod@w3.org 
>Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2013 9:59 PM
>Subject: Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals
> 
>
>Milorad,
>
>You should mint the URIs in your own namespace.  You should only mint 
>URIs within a URI space that: (a) you own; or (b) you have been 
>authorized by the owner to use for minting URIs. See:
>http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-ownership
>
>Minting URIs in someone else's URI space without their permission is 
>known as "URI squatting".
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0162.html
>It is considered anti-social, as it violates web architecture.
>
>David
>
>On 08/07/2013 12:19 PM, Frans Knibbe | Geodan wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I hope understand the question, but wouldn't the second option (d2:R
>> rdf:type d2:C2) result in an URI that can not be dereferenced because
>> the resource does not exist at the external server? If that is true, I
>> believe one 'official' rule that would be broken is the third principle
>> of Linked Data:
>>
>> "When someone looks up aURI, provide useful information, using the
>> standards (RDF*, SPARQL)".
>>
>> Regards,
>> Frans
>>
>> On 7-8-2013 15:20, Milorad Tosic wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am a new member of the list. I am Professor at University of Nis and
>>> entrepreneur actively working in the Semantic Web/Lined Data filed for a
>>> while. This is a questing that I originally posted on Jena-users list,
>>> but I was suggested that I should post it here also.
>>>
>>> Let us given an ontology O1 under development that has assigned domain
>>> "d1:". So, we have ownership of O1. For development of the O1 we find
>>> useful to use some knowledge defined in an ontology O2 with domain
>>> "d2:". Note that the O2 is an externally
>>> defined ontology not in our administration scope. Let's now assume we
>>> want to create a resource that would be an individual from the class
>>> "d2:C", where the class is defined in O2.
>>>
>>> What should be best practice to do: "d1:R rdf:type d2:C2" or "d2:R
>>> rdf:type d2:C2"?
>>>
>>> I believe both are conceptually correct statements
>>> but I am not sure whether the second statement is in accordance with
>>> Linked Data principles.
>>>
>>> Is there a strong "official" argument (backed by a standard, for
>>> example, or a
>>> recommendation from a standard body ...) supporting this opinion that
>>> can be used in argumentation?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Milorad Tosic
>>
>
>
>
>