Forwarded message 1
Phillip Lord wrote:
> 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 wrong.
>
What is exactly this one thing that you want? And are you sure that is
the ONE thing that others want? If yes, how can we be sure? If no, what
should the others do? And, what if someday you want to do another thing
with it?
I am not sure which part of LSID that you prefer? If you prefer the
resolution protocol? I think that has been summarized by the TAG at
"http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50.xml". Or if you
prefer the naming convention? If so, that is fine but please use a
straight-forward mapping to HTTP. I thought this has been discussed a
long time ago and Sean Martin has put a server somewhere for the
LSID-HTTP mapping. I don't know why the question is popped up again.
The recent cases are for the question that if a URI without a network
protocol is needed. It is not URN in the normal sense, let alone LSID.
I hope we can clear about this so we don't have to come to the full
circle of discussion again and again.
Cheers,
Xiaoshu