W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > August 2007

Re: RDF for molecules, using InChI

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:37:37 +0100
Message-ID: <46B75C61.5000908@musc.edu>
CC: public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 01:25 -0400, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>   
>> I don't think it is likely that the HCLS recommendations will suggest  
>> using INFO uri's. 
>>     
>
> Is the 'recommendation' of a particular URI scheme over others on the
> agenda? I would hope not.  I've yet to understand the motivation for
> considering the use of a particular URI scheme over another as a 'best
> practice' (the most common such suggestion being HTTP).
>   
It should be. The ultimate goal is "interoperability".  A proliferation 
of URI schemes doesn't help that direction.
> Note that the recent TAG finding [1] in this regard made a (guarded)
> argument for how HTTP schemes can facilitate location independence,
> persistence, etc..  This should not be confused for a recommendation
> *for* HTTP as the a preferred URI scheme.  I would consider such
> recommendations as dangerous and perhaps a misunderstanding of AWWW and
> the URI mechanism: the fact that the URI syntax allows for the use of
> arbitrary URI schemes is a feature not a bug.
>
>   
>> They haven't been championed by anyone, urn schemes  
>> are generally discouraged by the W3C TAG,
>>     
>
> Where exactly?
>   
I don't know if there is a formal recommendation.  But from what I have 
followed, my feeling is that it is indeed TAG's intension of making 
HTTP-URI the URI scheme in semantic web.  (Have you seen TAG is using 
any other URI scheme in their specification or even the example?)
>>   and in our discussions  
>> thus far haven't seen any advantages to using them while noting  
>> difficulties. 
>>     
>
> I don't think URI schemes were meant to be thought of that way (as
> mutually exclusive)
>   
No. That is not the point.  The point is if there is no significant 
advantage, don't reinvent the wheel. The goal, again, is not about which 
URI scheme is better.  TAG's intension, at least from what I understand, 
is try to use existing URI (a.k.a. HTTP URI) unless it is absolutely 
necessary to invent a new one and none of LSID's usecases have been 
shown to be convincing enough yet. 
> The HTTP scheme (as I understand it) is made for the Hypertext-Web, not
> every information space maps well to the Hypertext-Web and for those
> where resolution is not a necessary component, it is (a bit) redundant.
>   
Just because something is designed to do something doesn't have to do 
just that thing.  I think it also TAG's years to start realize that 
there is no essential difference between URI and URN.   TAG's intension 
to use just one URI scheme is to prevent the fragmentation of the web.  
I think HCLS should do the same because we don't want the  life-science 
community is fragmented within, neither from the rest of the web as well.

Xiaoshu
Received on Monday, 6 August 2007 17:38:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:49 GMT