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

Re: NCBI Resource Locator

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:16:59 -0400
Message-Id: <97F779A4-A1F1-485C-B08A-8713770FFE69@creativecommons.org>
Cc: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "public-semweb-lifesci hcls" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, info@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, olivier@nlm.nih.gov
To: Mark Wilkinson <markw@illuminae.com>

I can't find any discussion of NCBI URLs from May 2006 (the 5/9/06  
messages from you seem to be about something a bit more glorious) but  
the topic was raised at the 5/18/06 teleconference, which I didn't  
attend:
    http://www.w3.org/mid/000f01c67aa3$8caf1460$9c01a8c0@TERANET
Olivier offered to help out, but there was no action item, so the  
issue was probably forgotten.

To be clear, I think NCBI created these URLs so that people could  
program against them with long-term assurance against 404 risk. They  
have nothing particularly to do with the semantic web. But there is  
no reason we can't piggyback, if the names suit our purposes  
(consistent, accessible, well-defined), or encourage NCBI to develop  
the idea a bit further, if they don't.

To answer Eric N's question, the paper I was looking at was "The Life  
Sciences Semantic Web is Full of Creeps!" published June 2006, but it  
doesn't give a direct link to view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. I wanted to know  
what Mark was talking about regarding NCBI, and found the view site  
by searching Google for "ncbi stable url". Whether  
view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov is what he meant is another story.

Jonathan

On Sep 10, 2007, at 6:53 PM, Mark Wilkinson wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:30:27 -0700, Alan Ruttenberg  
> <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Probably worth finding out who is responsible and asking
>> whether there is any intention that is be used.
>
> The first time I recall this being discussed was on(this)-list  
> between me, Alan and Larry Hunter... in my mailbox it is the 9th of  
> May, 2006.  Maybe someone has a more complete record of the  
> conversation?
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2007 13:17:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 December 2014 20:09:36 UTC