RE: 44-52 That';s the Number

Hi All,

> 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).

One can use the URI escape sequence syntax for these.

cheers,
Michael

Michael Miller
Lead Software Developer
Rosetta Biosoftware Business Unit
www.rosettabio.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Eric Jain
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 5:37 AM
> To: Phillip Lord
> Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
> Subject: Re: 44-52 That';s the Number
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
>