Re: Unique ID options

There is no requirement that URIs be opaque. However if the they are  
not meant to be this needs to be documented.
This recent TAG finding documents the commons sense: http:// 
www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31.html

Regards,

Alan

On Jan 29, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Eric Neumann wrote:

>
>
> Matthias,
>
> The key item to remember in this discussion is that 'Observations'  
> as well as Trial 'Subjects' and 'Studies' need solid URIs, and as  
> you and Chimezie point out, there are different strategies. In our  
> task, we want to guarantee that any opbservation can be referenced  
> later for downstream (retrospective) analyses and annotations.
>
> The secondary issues here is whether to make URI's opaque or not,  
> and for the prupose of examples and demos, it seems to help making  
> the URI 'self-explanatory' for now. In the case provided by Kerstin  
> there is a second dependency embedded in the URI: each Observation  
> MUST be unique to a particular study AND subject (i.e., cartesian  
> product of both in the URI), hence the concatenated pathname to  
> make this explicit.
>
> Eric
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org on behalf of Matthias  
> Samwald
> Sent: Mon 1/29/2007 12:32 PM
> To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Unique ID options
>
>
>
>>  Well, I'm inclined to ask why URI's should be explicitely assigned?
>
> We had a discussion about blank nodes on a teleconference some  
> months ago:
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Meetings/ 
> 2006-09-11_Conference_Call
>
> bNodes don't serve as a replacement for URIs for cases where you  
> cannot decide on assigning a URI. They behave somewhat different  
> than one might think, e.g. in a SPARQL query.
> Another obvious reason for assigning URIs instead of bNodes is that  
> URIs are essential for making connections between distributed  
> datasets, which is one of the main arguments for using Semantic Web  
> standards. Even if you are sure that your ressource is of no  
> interest for anyone besides yourself at the time you are creating  
> it, this might still change later on.
>
> -- Matthias
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 29 January 2007 18:09:41 UTC