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 12:11:23 +0100
To: wangxiao@musc.edu
Cc: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>, Hilmar Lapp <hlapp@duke.edu>, public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-ID: <umywh5gro.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk>

>>>>> "XW" == Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu> writes:

  XW> Phillip Lord wrote:
  >> To me it makes no sense to layer multi different protocols over a single
  >> identifier. Imagine I get an URI like http://uniprot.org/P4543, it could
  >> be
  >> 1) a meaningless concept identifier in an ontology
  >> 2) a URL which resolves to a pretty web page, via a single step process
  >> 3) a URL which always resolve to the same data 4) A URL which resolves to
  >> the current version of some spec like the W3C recommendation pages. 5) A
  >> URL which is meant to be considered to be a location independent ID. 6)
  >> What ever else we have decided to layer onto the same identifier scheme.
  >> To me, it doesn't make any sense.
  XW> Does it make sense to you if our personal name is put like "Xiaoshu,
  XW> male, dark hair, 5'8, email=..., address, etc., etc., Wang"? Because if
  XW> so, I think we would be required to name ourself with our DNA string,
  XW> which is still not enough since it doesn't have my birth time, place,
  XW> alive-status....

  XW> Don't mistaken name/identifier as information. Then ask yourself what
  XW> you want from a name? Then, a lot of sense will start coming to you.

Unlike you, I have stated what I think the requirements are from an identifier
in life sciences. 

I want an identifier that I can do one thing with and, preferably, one thing
only. Not 5. I am not suggesting that we put semantics into the identifiers
other than those semantics that we need for using the ID. So, your analogy is

I have a better analogy. My name is Dr Phillip Lord. This is already
overloaded, as I'm a yeast geneticist (or was) not a medic. Why don't we give
another 4 or 5 meanings to "Dr" on the grounds that, as people have seen Dr
before, they will be happier with that than a new title.

Received on Friday, 24 August 2007 11:12:09 UTC

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