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

Re: A precedent suggesting a compromise for the SWHCLS IG Best Practices

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
Message-ID: <uac6wp3sd.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk>

>>>>> "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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:44 GMT