W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > August 2007

RE: making statements on the semantic web

From: Michel_Dumontier <Michel_Dumontier@carleton.ca>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:10:53 -0400
To: public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-id: <AB349814F1ECB143A5D4CD29C7A645690192D9D9@CCSEXB10.CUNET.CARLETON.CA>

  I think the creation of a comprehensive registry that mints and publicizes URIs is well worth pursuing. Perhaps a few of us, including Bio2RDF, can forge ahead and do what needs to be done?



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthias Samwald [mailto:samwald@gmx.at]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 5:00 AM
> To: Michel_Dumontier@carleton.ca; public-semweb-lifesci hcls
> Subject: Re: making statements on the semantic web
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:17:10 -0400, Michel_Dumontier wrote:
> > So a key concern for me is how I, as a user of public resources,
> > should make statements about them on the semantic web. While
> > certain data providers might already providing RDF/OWL data with
> > some URI, what about those that have yet to do this? How do I make
> statements about these resources, without
> > taking the responsibility of serving it up in my own namespace [4],
> > which might ultimately not integrate with content from another 3rd
> > party content provider.
> > [4] http://bio2rdf.org/
> The only practical solution I see is that a widely-recognized, neutral
> party starts minting URIs for those data providers that are not interested
> in URIs or RDF/OWL at the moment. This independent party should orient
> itself on the practices agreed upon in the HCLS IG community. It should
> implement the URIs and the URI resolution system in a way that makes it
> possible for those data providers to take over the administration of these
> URIs when they finally become interested.
> This is, I think, what Science Commons / Creative Commons has started
> doing with the PURLs that were created for the Banff demo. I think that
> these PURLs have the best chance of becoming widely accepted.
> bio2rdf has started a similar effort, but compared to the work of Science
> Commons, bio2rdf is not perceived as 'widely-recognized and neutral'. I
> would also trust in the long-term stability of URLs referring to purl.org
> much more than those that refer to bio2rdf.org. This should not be read as
> criticism of the bio2rdf team; they are simply doing what really needs to
> be done with the resources they have at hand, which is a very laudable
> effort.
> - Matthias Samwald
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 20:11:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:29 UTC