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

Re: [BioRDF] URI Resolution

From: Mark Montgomery <markm@kyield.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 14:41:40 -0700
Message-ID: <004b01c7496e$6facbc10$a100a8c0@Inspiron>
To: "Xiaoshu Wang" <wangxiao@musc.edu>, "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

It's been interesting following your positions on this issue, and timely for 
us as we are faced with a decision as a start-up on whether to embrace 
standards, pursue our own architecture, or some combination thereof. My 
personal preference has always leaned towards interoperability, but 
consensus making in a universe of conflicting interests and agendas, not to 
mention market share influence in computing and foundation technologies... 
makes for an interesting decision process.

It appears that reality will require some combination thereof, particularly 
when observing the challenges with ontology editors given our lofty goals in 

It's not clear to me how one achieves high adoption levels of ontological 
languages of any kind without resolving the URI, at least for cross org 
and/or public use, and the lack of efficiency with labor intensive 
customization would also limit adoption levels. I do see some understandable 
confusion between URI and content in ontology, which may be unavoidable 
given the difference between mathematical definitions and human 
interpretations. Personally I am far less concerned with what is agreed upon 
than I am in agreement evidenced by adoption. Of course it must function 
well, but I have more confidence that vendors will follow adoption (demand) 
than leading with consensus.

We'd be interested in discussing the possibility of testing a couple of 
assumptions in partnering in our work, if it would help- think it might.

Thanks for your energy, all.

Mark Montgomery
Founder, Kyield
Received on Monday, 5 February 2007 21:42:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:29 UTC