- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:47:49 -0400
- To: "Phillip Lord" <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Hilmar Lapp" <hlapp@duke.edu>, "public-semweb-lifesci hcls" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "Eric Jain" <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
> From: Phillip Lord > [ . . . ] > I don't understand the desire to implement everything using > HTTP. Why call lots of things, which are actually several > protocols by a name which suggests that they are all one. How > to distinguish between an HTTP URI which allows you to do > location independent, two step resolution and one which > doesn't. Well, one solution would be, perhaps, to call it > something different, say, perhaps, LSID? But that's like asking "Why call everything URNs?". LSIDs are layered on top of URNs. Certainly conventions layered on top of HTTP URIs can have names too, just as conventions layered on top of URNs can. For example, the LSID conventions layered on top of HTTP could be named HLSID and published in a specification just as the existing LSID conventions are. David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/software Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 17:50:02 UTC