- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:28:37 -0400
- To: Trish Whetzel <whetzel@pcbi.upenn.edu>
- Cc: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>, w3c semweb hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
Hi Trish, What was the specifics of the argument for alphanumeric versus numeric identifiers? If you check out the go-format list I recently sent some examples that use identifiers of the form http://www.bioontologies.org/2006/02/obo/GO#0000001 Details are in http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=24431577 BTW, all of them are alphanumeric in the sense that they are URIs. But a little care needs to be taken because of qnames, etc. used in xml. Nothing that can't be worked around in a reasonable manner. Regards, Alan On Jul 10, 2006, at 12:23 PM, Trish Whetzel wrote: > As one note, I wanted to mention that it seems as though alphanumeric > versus solely numeric identifiers would be preferred based on viewing > preliminary work by Chris Mungall in efforts to translate OBO format > ontologies to OWL. > > Trish
Received on Tuesday, 11 July 2006 03:28:49 UTC