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

feasibility; purl.org/commons

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 09:39:04 -0400
Message-Id: <4D764A5E-4328-4544-B025-B1C73B308083@creativecommons.org>
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
To: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>

Thanks. I guess I thought it was obvious, but nothing seems to be in  
this territory. I added
   7. likelihood of adoption by uncommitted HCLS members [added 8/25]
   8. ease of adoption [added 8/25]

About the http://purl.org/commons/ URIs, I think it would be wrong to  
interpret their non-adoption as a sign of community resistance. I  
have felt it would be a conflict of interest to promote them much in  
advance of HCLS recommendations on the subject, so it's possible that  
if few others are using them it's only because they haven't been  
recommended.

The purl.org/commons system was a unilateral Science Commons  
experiment that was needed for the Banff demo, and the intent was  
always to review the design before asking anyone else to adopt it.  
That is just what we're doing now. If it looks like those URIs will  
work for HCLS, then we'll say so in the recommendations note. If they  
need to be relocated or redesigned, that's fine too. Better to do  
that now than after they're widely deployed.

Jonathan


On Aug 25, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Eric Jain wrote:

> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Meetings/ 
>> 2007-08-27_Conference_Call/UriNoteStatus
>
> One more criteria that may be worth adding:
>
> 7. feasability - There is no point coming up with advice that the  
> HCLS isn't even able or willing to follow in it's own projects.  
> (I'm thinking about the -- potentially very useful -- effort that  
> was started with the goal of creating usable URIs for databases  
> that don't provide any.)
Received on Sunday, 26 August 2007 13:39:16 GMT

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