- From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:25:06 +0100
- To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
- Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
>>>>> "HST" == Henry S Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> writes: HST> With respect to the upcoming W3C Semantic Web Health Care and HST> Life Sciences Interest Group f2f discussion of LSIDs, I wonder HST> if you might think seriously about adopting an approach similar HST> to that used by the ARK (Archival Resource Key) naming scheme HST> [1]. HST> _Very_ roughly, this would involve Semantic Web uses of LSIDs HST> to use an http-scheme version of LSIDs, along the following HST> lines: HST> URN:LSID:rcsb.org:PDB:1D4X:22 --> HST> http://lsids.org/lsid:rcsb.org:PDB:1D4X:22 HST> or, alternatively, as per my recent suggestion to Sean HST> http://rcsb.org.lsids.org/lsid:PDB:1D4X:22 HST> I strongly recommend studying the ARK approach in any case, as HST> it seems to me that although starting from a different subject HST> area, its requirements are very close to your own. I don't want to get "domainist" about this, but if it is broadly similar can you give a quick outline as to why ARK is better than LSIDs. I am starting to think that the main difficulty with LSIDs is that it has the phrase "Life Sciences" in the title which makes it domain dependant. My proposal is that we rename LSID to ARID for Archival Resource ID. Would this solve the difficulties? Phil
Received on Wednesday, 26 July 2006 19:25:34 UTC