- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 15:59:31 -0400
- To: Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- CC: public-lod@w3.org
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