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
>

Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2013 19:59:59 UTC