- From: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:37:00 +0200
- To: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- CC: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Phillip Lord wrote: > TH> Background: The "info" URI scheme is a means of grandfathering > TH> legacy namespaces onto the Web in their own right (e.g. PubMed > TH> identifiers, ADS bibcodes, etc., etc.). Many Web applications > TH> expect identifiers to be packaged as URIs (Uniform Resource > TH> Identifiers) and "info" fulfils that need. > > So do LSID's. Would you like to comment and advantages/disadvantages? Three reasons I can think of: 1. People may be reluctant to use something called "life sciences identifiers" in a non-life-sciences context (even if they could see that there isn't anything life-sciences-specific about these identifiers). 2. Squeezing legacy identifiers into LSIDs can be tricky; some life sciences databases use colons in their identifiers (GO and MGD), or separate version numbers with dots (EMBL). 3. LSIDs are a bit verbose, and once you provide an LSID you may be expected to implement the entire WS resolution stack, which some people may not consider worth the trouble.
Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2006 12:37:21 UTC