- From: Miller, Michael D (Rosetta) <Michael_Miller@Rosettabio.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:00:49 -0700
- To: "Eric Jain" <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>, "Phillip Lord" <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
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. > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2006 15:01:21 UTC