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

RE: LSID: What's still needed to make it work within the semantic web?

From: wangxiao <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:50:51 -0500
Message-Id: <200503161650.j2GGonnr025503@flopsy.musc.edu>
To: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
My two cents on the subjects:
 
1) In MHO, what differs LSID from a simple URN is its coupling of name with
a protocol.  This sort of "resolve" the issues of Identity crisis in RDF
because we can ask if a resource is available and in what dimensionality.
For instance, if a LSID is used to represent a gel, should it be presented
in image (what format though) or XML, RDF etc?
 
Thus, the first change I hope it can be made is to have service like
 
getData(LSID lsid, URI dimension)
 
and an associated method similar to this 
 
getDataDimensionality(LSID lsid) 
 
2) The distinction of metadata and data is always arbiturary.  I think it
needs to be clarified.  
    I would like to make a suggestion here.
 
    Metadata is the data presented in RDF and Data is otherwise.
 
   I believe this pragmatic approach will clarify a lot of confusion.  Data
retrieval is a two step process.  First, we need to figure out if we need to
see something.  If we think so, we go to get the thing and do something
about it.  I think RDF is suitable for the first one and data presented in
other format suits the latter.
 
    So, if I were given a LSID, I would 
    1) use the framework to retrieve the RDF about it and figure out what it
is about
    2) If I am interested, I would request the data in a particular
dimensionality that I can handle
    3) Do something about it.
 
3) By the way, what is the status of LSID.  I think it is a great idea and
would like to contribute.  But if I google "LSID", it leads to I3C. From
I3C, it links to OMG.  What worries me is that first, I3C has too many
broken and that worries me.  And second if I go to OMG, and search for LSID,
the result is empty. :-(
 
Xiaoshu 
 
P.S. Sorry Eric, you might received this mesage twice :-( 
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2005 16:51:32 GMT

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