Re: IDs + 5; everybody - 10

My apologies. I wasn't sure, which is why I asked. I just found your idea of
reproducing LSIDs advantages (and implicitly DOI) in http a little worrying. 
I may have misread your email. 

Phi



>>>>> "JR" == Jonathan Rees <jonathan.rees@gmail.com> writes:

  JR> I never said LSID or DOIs shouldn't be used, and I don't see how my
  JR> message can be construed as saying this. I'm trying to be fair to all
  JR> solutions by talking about real technical requirements. If the W3C HCLS
  JR> SIG wants to recommend the use - even minting - of LSIDs, that's fine
  JR> with me. But I don't think any decisions have been reached.

  JR> LSID users are committed to using HTTP URIs. For example, anyone who
  JR> uses both LSID and RDF is committed to using the HTTP URI
  JR> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type.

  JR> Jonathan

  JR> 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
  >> 




-- 
Phillip Lord,                           Phone: +44 (0) 191 222 7827
Lecturer in Bioinformatics,             Email: phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk
School of Computing Science,            http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/phillip.lord
Claremont Tower Room 909,               skype: russet_apples
Newcastle University,                   
NE1 7RU

Received on Monday, 16 July 2007 16:43:47 UTC