- From: Daniel Rubin <dlrubin@stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:07:15 -0800
- To: "Xiaoshu Wang" <wangxiao@musc.edu>, "'w3c semweb hcls'" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
On the format of URI (slash vs hash), it would be worth hearing from the as much of the W3C community as possible, as there could be differences of opinion. At this point, we are collecting the requirements. In terms of synchronization, BioPortal will serve up the "current version" as defined by the authors of the ontologies. They can either push those to us, or if they prefer, they can discuss with us the possibilities for pull at regular intervals. Daniel At 07:37 AM 1/10/2007, Xiaoshu Wang wrote: > >> Yes, a URI mechanism will be made available soon. Ontologies > will have their own namespaces defined by > >> the authors, or if none is provided, we will create one based > on our bioontology.org namespace. > >If the authors have their own namespace URI, that means they have to >maintain a copy of the ontology at their own site. I wonder how will >the synchronization between the bioportal to the external site be >established? > >If an ontology is to adopt the URI that the bioportal provides, I >wonder what kind of URI, in terms of the hash vs. slash, that the >bioportal will support. For a samll sized ontology, the hash URI >would be sufficient and ideal. But if the ontology's size is huge, >I do believe the slash URI should be used to avoid the unnecessary >import. From the implementation point of view, however, supporting >slash URI would take a lot more hassle than supporting the hash URI. >I wonder if bioportal will be able to support that? > >Xiaoshu
Received on Thursday, 11 January 2007 01:36:48 UTC