- From: Steven Bedrick <bedricks@ohsu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 09:00:50 -0700
- To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
<snip> > Nevertheless, since your proposal in this message was to build URIs > (URLs) that cannot resolve, I would favour using LSIDs as identifiers > since it is less ad hoc... I'd like to second this notion, as well as the one expressed earlier by Matthias Samwald--- there already is a ton of work behind LSIDs, and the absolute last thing we need is a competing "NCBI-only" URI standard. What's really needed here is for the NCBI to start getting on the LSID bandwagon and start offering a resolution service. I think one of the main things holding people back from using LSIDs is that resolving NCBI-related LSIDs currently involves "third-party servers", and isn't always as intuitive, easy, and reliable as it could be. If the NCBI started hosting their own resolution server, and started integrating the LSID into their APIs, I think we'd see a lot more adoption. So, I guess we're back to the "Does anybody around here know someone at the NCBI?" question. :-) -SB
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 16:01:30 UTC