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

RE: identifier to use

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:47:49 -0400
Message-ID: <EBBD956B8A9002479B0C9CE9FE14A6C20314FA6F@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Phillip Lord" <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
Cc: "Hilmar Lapp" <hlapp@duke.edu>, "public-semweb-lifesci hcls" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "Eric Jain" <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>

> From: Phillip Lord
> [ . . . ]
> I don't understand the desire to implement everything using
> HTTP. Why call lots of things, which are actually several
> protocols by a name which suggests that they are all one. How
> to distinguish between an HTTP URI which allows you to do
> location independent, two step resolution and one which
> doesn't. Well, one solution would be, perhaps, to call it
> something different, say, perhaps, LSID?

But that's like asking "Why call everything URNs?".  LSIDs are layered
on top of URNs.  Certainly conventions layered on top of HTTP URIs can
have names too, just as conventions layered on top of URNs can.  For
example, the LSID conventions layered on top of HTTP could be named
HLSID and published in a specification just as the existing LSID
conventions are.


David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent
the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
 
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 17:50:02 GMT

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