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

Re: identifier to use

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:45:53 +0100
Message-ID: <46CD8181.5000906@musc.edu>
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.

Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 12:46:42 UTC

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