Re: [BioRDF] All about the LSID URI/URN

Hi All,

I think Susie is performing a valuable service which we all respect  
and which may help to advance the discussion.  HOWEVER...

...  I STRONGLY RECOMMEND that no-one consider the Bio-RDF call  
Monday as anything else than a very preliminary discussion FOR  
INITIAL EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, which needs to be followed up by  
much more in-depth and authoritative discussions on LSID and other  
identifier schemes.

I am certain that Susie never intended the Monday call to be anything  
else than that, i.e. a preliminary educational discussion.

I recommend that we in HCLS work, after the conclusion of ISMB, to  
prepare a more inclusive and authoritative discussion on this topic,  
with all the key players involved.  We ought to aim to leverage ALL  
the good work people have done in this area, LSID in particular.   
Discussions on this topic that do not include - in a well-organized  
way - some of the key contributors to the practice of bioinformatics  
and semantic web,  have to be considered non-authoritative and  
therefore not a basis for making important decisions.

Again, I am very sure Susie would share this opinion.  This is just a  
caution to people around the W3C but from outside bioinformatics --  
who may not realize how much serious work on distributed identifiers  
has been done by people who cannot participate in Monday's call --  
and whom we very much need to consult.

Best

Tim

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
------
Tim Clark

Director of Research Programs
Harvard University Initiative in Innovative Computing
60 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138
http://iic.harvard.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
------



On SaturdayJul 29, 2006, at 9:25 AM, William Bug wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I would also give a strong DITTO to the leadership Susie is  
> providing on this extremely important issue.  Getting clarification  
> on the pros & cons is essential to catalyzing broader adoption of  
> SWTech.
>
> I would also add I'm extremely grateful to ALL the experts who've  
> been presenting clear arguments and information related to this  
> issue.  It's all been extremely valuable.  Susie is working very  
> hard to collate this information and provide this as a resource to  
> the community.  As Alan mentioned, this will remain an ongoing and  
> critical debate, and it will be of value to us all to help provide  
> a clearing house for documentation related to to this issue on the  
> BioRDF Wiki pages.
>
> The group of people listening in on this debate here on this list  
> are a self-selected population of technically astute folks with  
> implementation of SWTech on their minds - and probably on their  
> immediate list of TODOs, if not already on their list of previous  
> achievements.  Most will be very knowledgeable of the general  
> technical issues and will be likely to dig into the details  
> presented on both sides of the argument.   I have found all the  
> details extremely illuminating - especially the thorough background  
> and references provided by Sean and the specifics given regarding  
> the debates the TAG has had on this issue.
>
> I think I can assure Carole no one here would be likely to take the  
> achievements of those who've implemented LSID-based systems - and  
> ARK and the others - lightly - or those who might, would be doing  
> themselves and the communities they represent a great disservice.
>
> I look forward to Monday and the follow-up discussions both on the  
> list, in future TCons, and on the HCLSIG-BioRDF Wiki.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill
>
>
>
> On Jul 29, 2006, at 8:09 AM, jbarkley@nistgov wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> (who very much appreciates Susie's efforts to
>>> coordinate)
>>
>> Ditto on that!
>>
>> jb
>>
>>
>>
>> Quoting Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>
>>> Susie shouldn't take any blame for this - The meeting is
>>> one in a
>>> series, is well announced, and would certainly have been
>>> rescheduled
>>> if, like,  anyone with an interest had bothered to
>>> request it with
>>> adequate advance notice.
>>>
>>> There's nothing particularly special about this meeting.
>>> If others with
>>> interest in the subject want a further meeting to discuss
>>> things then
>>> we should do that.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> (who very much appreciates Susie's efforts to
>>> coordinate)
>>>
>>> On Jul 28, 2006, at 2:24 PM, Carole Goble wrote:
>>>
>>>> By the way I have already lodged an objection to Susie
>>> that to have
>>>> such a telecon when many people who actually, like, use
>>> the stuff for,
>>>> like, real are at ISMB2006 in Brazil and will not be
>>> able to
>>>> participate. Like Doh!
>>>>
>>>> Carole
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Bill Bug
> Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer
>
> Laboratory for Bioimaging  & Anatomical Informatics
> www.neuroterrain.org
> Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy
> Drexel University College of Medicine
> 2900 Queen Lane
> Philadelphia, PA    19129
> 215 991 8430 (ph)
> 610 457 0443 (mobile)
> 215 843 9367 (fax)
>
>
> Please Note: I now have a new email - William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu
>
>
>
>
>
> This email and any accompanying attachments are confidential.
> This information is intended solely for the use of the individual
> to whom it is addressed. Any review, disclosure, copying,
> distribution, or use of this email communication by others is strictly
> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us
> immediately by returning this message to the sender and delete
> all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.