- From: Jonathan Rees <jonathan.rees@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:04:33 -0400
- To: "Phillip Lord" <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
I never said LSID or DOIs shouldn't be used, and I don't see how my message can be construed as saying this. I'm trying to be fair to all solutions by talking about real technical requirements. If the W3C HCLS SIG wants to recommend the use - even minting - of LSIDs, that's fine with me. But I don't think any decisions have been reached. LSID users are committed to using HTTP URIs. For example, anyone who uses both LSID and RDF is committed to using the HTTP URI http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type. Jonathan On 7/16/07, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk> wrote: > >>>>> "JR" == Jonathan Rees <jonathan.rees@gmail.com> writes: > > JR> It may look like unnecessary replication, but it's not really, since > JR> we're already committed to the http: space and all the issues that LSID > JR> addressed are issues there as well. > > JR> The same remarks apply to handles, DOIs in particular. > > > Are you suggesting that DOIs shouldn't be used either? > > Phil >
Received on Monday, 16 July 2007 16:04:37 UTC