W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > April 2005

Re: [BioPAX-discuss] LSID Best practices...

From: Gary Bader <bader@cbio.mskcc.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:33:00 -0400
Message-Id: <6caf2356284e6d92858ffb96abd00c2b@cbio.mskcc.org>
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
To: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>

Thanks Eric.  Do you know how this fits into the LSID and semantic web 
infrastructure?  Is there any standard way of resolving LSIDs that are 
used in this way?  It would seem that they can be used as RDF IDs, but 
that they would not be treated specially compared to any other RDF ID 
and could be mixed with other RDF IDs, which might have different 
resolution mechanisms.  I guess one major advantage of using them this 
way is that LSIDs have a naming scheme that conforms with semantic web 
ideals i.e. remains stable except when data changes.  Would it be 
better to treat LSIDs similarly to other database identifiers, as data 
in a class property, and build software to use it specifically (e.g. 
resolve, browse)?  Or would it be better to have software that detects 
if an RDF ID is an LSID and adds appropriate LSID features?

Thanks,
Gary

On Apr 7, 2005, at 2:22 AM, Eric Jain wrote:

>
> Gary Bader wrote:
>>     This may be a naive question, but does anyone know if LSIDs 
>> could/should be used as RDF IDs for individuals in OWL documents?
>
> They definitely can be used (we do). Can't give any authoritative 
> answer on the "should"...
>
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 13:32:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:40 GMT