W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > July 2006

Re: A precedent suggesting a compromise for the SWHCLS IG Best Practices (ARK)

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:37:03 -0400
Message-Id: <060F8A18-4E82-4D4F-8D48-D2672F4E198F@gmail.com>
Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Sean Martin <sjmm@us.ibm.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, www-tag@w3.org, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org

In looking at ARK and comparing to LSID, I see the following issues:

1. We need some mechanism to globally assert that things like


are all the same thing. From an OWL DL perspective this is a bit  
tricky because we need to use sameAs, equivalentClass, or  
equivalentProperty depending on what the URI is used for.

Or, we adopt a convention that within SW documents we always make the  
URI be ark:/12025/654xz321 (well, perhaps we need an extra slash - or  
convince the standard to make the ark look like a urn) and always  
have a property(e.g. resolvesTo) associated with it that adds the  
naming authority so we can resolve it. Outside SW documents, such as  
in publications, we always use the full URL.

2. To address the concern that http isn't necessarily a good  
transport layer for complex data, we allow that providers may opt to  
provide the metadata and policy, but return a machine and person  
understandable message that redirects to use the metadata instead,  
which is specified to include the sort of access service information  
that lsid provides for.

3. The paper doesn't mention qualifiers, but the current version of  
the specification does. We should perhaps agree on some conventions  
on the form of qualifiers so that we can use them to represent  
versions, where appropriate.

Received on Friday, 28 July 2006 23:37:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:18 UTC