- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:45:53 +0100
- To: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- CC: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>, Hilmar Lapp <hlapp@duke.edu>, public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Phillip Lord wrote: > As I understand it, there is a fail over mechanism. If uniprot.org falls over, > the first resolution step can be performed by an LSID server not at > uniprot.org. I can't remember exactly how this works, as I haven't read the > spec for ages. > > As far as I can see, LSIDs are basically location independent. The only whole > I can see is if someone else buys uniprot.org, sets up an LSID resolution > service and then returns crap. purls have the same issue I think. > If you consider "domain name" is location, then http-URI is location dependent. Otherwise, http-URI is location independent too. The issue you raised is more about failover protection, which LSID is more advantageous. But using redundancy to do fail over protection is not a CHEAP operation (since we are talking about cost here). That is why the approach is always used in mission-critical application. Personally, I cannot think of any use cases are that kind of mission-critical to warrant the effort. Xiaoshu
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 12:46:42 UTC