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

Re: [Fwd: Re: identifier to use]

From: Ricardo Pereira <ricardo@tdwg.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:12:38 -0300
Message-ID: <46CF2DA6.3000905@tdwg.org>
To: public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

    Hello all,

    The biodiversity informatics community, which I'm a member of, were 
faced with the same issues when we decided to adopt LSID.

    After much discussion, we extended the work from Sean Marting and 
others regarding LSID HTTP proxies and devised a set of recommendations 
to make LSID more interoperable with the Web (and the Semantic Web). The 
recommendations are at:


    With those recommendations, we believe we reached a compromise in 
which we let standard Web clients consume and navigate through networks 
of objects identified by LSIDs, while retaining what we believe are 
benefits of LSID.

    I hope this helps.


Ricardo Pereira
Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG)


Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
> I am not sure which part of LSID that you prefer? If you prefer the 
> resolution protocol? I think that has been summarized by the TAG at 
> "http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50.xml".  Or if you 
> prefer the naming convention?  If so, that is fine but please use a 
> straight-forward mapping to HTTP.  I thought this has been discussed a 
> long time ago and Sean Martin has put a server somewhere for the 
> LSID-HTTP mapping.  I don't know why the question is popped up again.
Received on Friday, 24 August 2007 19:13:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:33 UTC