W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > April 2006

Re: 44-52 That';s the Number

From: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:37:00 +0200
Message-ID: <443BA2EC.6040702@isb-sib.ch>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:25 UTC