May be this discussion should take place in public-lod instead of here. cf http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Milorad Tosic <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks all for helping me out! I totally agree with you. > > But, is there a strong argument (backed by a standard, for example, or a > recommendation from a standard body ...) supporting this opinion that can > be used in argumentation? > > Milorad > > > > > > >________________________________ > > From: Olivier Rossel <[email protected]> > >To: [email protected] > >Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2013 10:47 AM > >Subject: Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals > > > > > >Michale s answer can be illustrated when setting up URI derefencing. > >I.e when people can "access" your resource via HTTP. > >To achieve that, your URIs are mapped to URLs in your IT infrastructure. > >This is technically possible only if the namespace of your URIs maps with > >your domain name > >and website structure. > >So, in short: use your own namespace (and define it according to your IT > if > >you want URI dereferencing :) > > > > > > > >On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Michael Brunnbauer <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> > >> Hello Milorad, > >> > >> you should not create URIs in other peoples namespaces without their > >> permission. > >> > >> So best practice would be "d1:R rdf:type d2:C2". > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Michael Brunnbauer > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 06:00:27PM -0700, Milorad Tosic wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > The question may be somewhat out of focus of the group but since we > have > >> here a number of competent people I dared to post the question here. > >> > > >> > > >> > 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. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Milorad Tosic > >> > >> -- > >> ++ Michael Brunnbauer > >> ++ netEstate GmbH > >> ++ Geisenhausener Straße 11a > >> ++ 81379 München > >> ++ Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80 > >> ++ Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89 > >> ++ E-Mail [email protected] > >> ++ http://www.netestate.de/ > >> ++ > >> ++ Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München) > >> ++ USt-IdNr. DE221033342 > >> ++ Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer > >> ++ Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel > >> > > > > >
