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

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

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:46:21 -0400
Message-Id: <0B3F842A-83B0-4A0A-8157-A16A2A6CC448@gmail.com>
To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Sean Martin <sjmm@us.ibm.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, www-tag@w3.org, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>


On Jul 28, 2006, at 7:37 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> 3. The paper doesn't mention qualifiers, but the current version of  
> the specification does. We should perhaps agree on some conventions  
> on the form of qualifiers so that we can use them to represent  
> versions, where appropriate.

BTW, something that I like about the ARC spec, is that the when using  
qualifiers, part of the contract is that you commit to there being an  
unqualified identifier. One of the things that I have has a concern  
over with LSIDs is what to do with versioned identifiers.

Sometimes it is important to have the version - like when you are  
doing some sequence based analysis and you need to remember the  
specific sequence you used. But in many other cases, when you make  
some assertion about the gene you either don't know the version that  
the statement was based on, or you don't care because the intension  
to refer to the concept of whatever the exact sequence turns out to be.

So extending the contract so that you know you can always get the  
thing, sans version, would seem to be an advantage.

Similarly they define hierarchical relationships expressed in the  
identifiers to be explicitly in a part-of relation to the id without  
hierarchical information.

-Alan
Received on Sunday, 30 July 2006 23:46:35 GMT

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