RDTF metadata that is exposed using the Linked Data approach must be made available under an open licence as RDF datasets.
The location of all RDF dumps must be disclosed in accordance with the Semantic Web Crawling Sitemap Extension.
Metadata about multiple collections may be made available. If so, the dataset corresponding to each collection should be made available using separate RDF dumps.
The dataset in each RDF dump must include links to other (external) RDF datasets, for example those describing people, organisations, topics or places.
The dataset in each RDF dump must be described using the Vocabulary of Interlinked Datasets (VoID). VoID files must be made available over HTTP and must be listed in the sitemap(s) above.
All significant resources associated with the collection of interest must be assigned a unique ‘http’ URI.
All URIs must dereference to a human-readable HTML description and an RDF description (e.g. using RDF/XML, N-Triples, RDF/JSON or RDFa ) of the resource when the URI, either by using one of the patterns described in Cool URIs for the Semantic Web  or by combining the HTML and RDF descriptions using embedded RDFa.
For libraries, the use of RDF data modeled according to FRBR and including links to other RDF sources (such as people, organisations, topics and places) is acceptable. The JISC OpenBib project  provides an example of this.
For museums, the use of RDF data modeled according to the CIDOC CRM and including links to other RDF sources (such as people, organisations, topics and places) is acceptable. The CLAROS project  provides an example of this.
For archives, the use of RDF data modeled according to EAD and including links to other RDF sources (such as people, organisations, topics and places) is acceptable. The JISC LOCAH project  provides an example of this.
As an end-user:
- it will be possible to cite and bookmark resources of interest using their URIs, knowing that dereferencing the URI will offer a description or a representation of the resource;
- browsing the resulting ‘web of data’ will encourage the discovery of new resources in other collections.
As an aggregator:
- combining metadata from different providers should become easier (depending on the consistency of FRBR, CIDOC CRM and EAD adoption in RDF), building on shared URIs for external resources (people, organisations, topics, places, etc.);
- As a provider:
- metadata will offer more value because it is fully integrated into a web of data;
- greater (and more fine-grained) control over the metadata associated with resources means that access can be optimised (load balancing, caching, etc.).
As a provider:
- modelling resources (e.g. using FRBR, CIDOC CRM or EAD) and constructing RDF metadata may be time consuming;
- assigning URIs to resources may be non-trivial;
- discovering appropriate external collections and creating links to the resources they contain may be time consuming;
- investment will be required to configure web servers to serve descriptions of resources at their URIs.