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

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

From: Jun Zhao <zhaoj@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:09:42 +0100
Message-ID: <42564A56.2080106@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Sean Martin <sjmm@us.ibm.com>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org


Thanks Sean for your detailed answers. It helps a lot.

Sean Martin wrote:

> Certainly one may give the same data more than one 
> LSID name (and if the records are in two different databases, there is 
> greater reason) so one should not feel bound by my earlier stated 
> preference.  

But if so, there is no one-to-one relationship between the data and LSID 
then. And can we still call LSID as URI at this case then?

> A more likely scenario is where one would have metadata to 
> record the equivalentTo, derivedFrom or perhaps isaformof relationships 
> associated with two different LSIDs, one in each database or that the 
> LSID from the later database would simply record a reference to the 
> record in the first by using the LSID.

So URI+some metadata together helps to identify a resource? Is it a 
common practice in the life science using LSID in this way?

> Getting eveyone to create this kind of linkage is 
> not too high on my own priority list though as I think there are much 
> more valuable and lower hanging fruit ;-)

Hehe, neither in mine. I am using Person all the time just because it 
appeared in the best practice. Actually I am more interested in how to 
trace the data provenance relationship. If a new data is generated, 
should I just give it a new LSID or first checking the existence of it; 
and try to identify the data using the LSID and the semantic 
relationship between the data. How not to break the principle that LSID 
is a kind of URI at the same time? I guess this might be common in some 
other projects as well.

Best regards,

Jun Zhao
Received on Friday, 8 April 2005 09:10:03 GMT

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