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

Re: RFC 2616 vs. AWWW

From: Jonathan Rees <jonathan.rees@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:55:02 -0400
Message-ID: <3cff5e070710112055v5f10eaf2k3fdc69dbf971ad02@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Eric Jain" <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

I wish I could not worry. Pat has put me at ease, so I've added his
idea as a 5th option. But your implicit question is why do I care. The
reason is that I want to win over various ornery parties to the
application of the http: scheme to the semantic web, if it makes
sense, or abandon it, if not. The ornery parties include some of the
people on this list, as well as demanding groups such as scientists,
physicians, librarians, and publishers. In my experience ornery people
don't like to stand on a foundation of shaky, inconsistent
specifications. http: has had two major losses this year - TDWG's
adoption of LSID, and inchi's adoption of info: - and the case we make
(should we choose to do so) to the next 100 groups facing this
decision has to be rock solid, because they have crusty technical
people too.

On 10/11/07, Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch> wrote:
>
> Jonathan Rees wrote:
> > http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Tasks/URI_Best_Practices/Recommendations/StatusOfHttpScheme
>
> 4 :-)
>
>
Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 03:55:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:50 GMT