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

Re: identifier to use

From: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:47:07 +0200
Message-ID: <46CD3B7B.6020803@isb-sib.ch>
To: Hilmar Lapp <hlapp@duke.edu>
CC: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

Hilmar Lapp wrote:
> In the LSID resolver spec resolution doesn't depend on the authority 
> domain name.

Neither does the HTTP URI scheme: You can set up common HTTP proxy software 
to reroute HTTP requests (if you don't want to do application-level 
rewriting). I don't quite see how that's less effective or practical than 
the LSID fallback mechanism?


> This is (at least was) a concept similar as for DOIs. If the original 
> journal or publisher goes away, the DOI can be rerouted through the 
> central registry to a different journal, or publisher that subsumed the 
> original one, or to a digital archive.

Note that the LSID scheme has the same proplem as HTTP if the owner of a 
domain changes, e.g. if UniProt disappears and the uniprot.org domain is 
bought by UniProt the security company, and they buy into the LSID system 
(it's really not domain specific after all, right?), they might set up a 
resolver, and all of a sudden urn:lsid:uniprot.org:keyword:6 returns a 
description of "armed robbery" instead of " multifunctional enzyme"...
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 07:47:32 GMT

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