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

Re: identifier to use

From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:21:41 +0100
To: "Booth\, David \(HP Software - Boston\)" <dbooth@hp.com>
Cc: "Hilmar Lapp" <hlapp@duke.edu>, "public-semweb-lifesci hcls" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "Eric Jain" <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
Message-ID: <u64356xmy.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk>

>>>>> "DS" == "Booth, David (HP Software <- Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>> writes:

  >> 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?

  DS> But that's like asking "Why call everything URNs?". 

No it isn't. http:// based URIs carry the assumption that they are potentially
resolvable by a defined protocol. URNs do not. 

  DS> LSIDs are layered on top of URNs.  Certainly conventions layered on top
  DS> of HTTP URIs can have names too, just as conventions layered on top of
  DS> URNs can.  For example, the LSID conventions layered on top of HTTP
  DS> could be named HLSID and published in a specification just as the
  DS> existing LSID conventions are.

LSID conventions are layered on top of HTTP already. They just use a different
convention for naming, to indicate that they are different. 

Received on Friday, 24 August 2007 10:22:33 UTC

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