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

Re: Does follow-your-nose apply in the enterprise? was: RDF for molecules, using InChI

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 10:32:10 +0100
Message-ID: <46BADF1A.1030607@musc.edu>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: ogbujic@ccf.org, public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2007, at 15:30, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
>> Chimezie,
>>> The employee wants to build an ontology and doesn't have control over
>>> web space.  She considers using the tag scheme instead of an HTTP 
>>> scheme
>>> (with a bogus domain name such as
>>> http://example.com/clinical-medicine/surgical-procedures#minimally-invasive-procedure) 
>>> because the latter scenario would result in the use of the HTTP 
>>> scheme which incorrectly suggests (to "follow-you-nose Semantic Web 
>>> agents" - there is growing number of such software) that they 
>>> attempt to unnecessarily dereference the terms for more 'useful' 
>>> information.
>> But this is a "pyschological" issue, not a "technical one".
> [snip]
> Psychological issues *are* technical. Think HCI or accessibility.
Fair enough. But should this social/technical issued be solved (1) 
socially, i.e., by "best practice/education", or (2) technically by 
building an entirely new infrastructure and community support for a new 
URI scheme? 

> (I don't agree with your analysis even after this. For example, one 
> reason she might care about FYN semantic web agents is that it might 
> be a reasoner that does *different* things when fed an HTTP uri (tries 
> to dereference) and a URN (er...doesn't). 
That is what I was asking right? What kind of difference does it make to 
an agent for the following two resources.
a) http://404/a/b/c - returns a 404
b) lsid:404:a:b:c    - non-dereferenciable

The only benefit might be to save on a futile attempt.  But, if this is 
the case and important enough, then why not designate a top domain name 
like "tmp" to signal this.  For instance, use 
"http://example.com.tmp/doc" as the temporary URI for the eventual 
resource of "http://example.com/doc".
> And of course we can work out compensations for that, but c'mon. We're 
> talking about trade offs and work arounds, not "can you make it work 
> if you try hard enough.")  
I was talking trade-offs and not try to say "try hard to make it work".  
I was curious that if the intension is to use bogus URIs, then anything 
is fine. HTTP-URI, LSID, or name-your-own-URI-scheme.  Why does it have 
to be LSID? 

The original question Alan posted to Chimezie is if he can present a use 
case that strongly support  the recommendation of LSID.  Chimezie gives 
that one and I was trying to say using LSID does not have particular 
advantages in this use case.

Received on Thursday, 9 August 2007 09:49:00 UTC

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