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

RE: [Fwd: Re: identifier to use]

From: Miller, Michael D (Rosetta) <Michael_Miller@Rosettabio.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 10:00:29 -0700
To: wangxiao@musc.edu
cc: "Eric Jain" <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>, "Ricardo Pereira" <ricardo@tdwg.org>, "Hilmar Lapp" <hlapp@duke.edu>, "public-semweb-lifesci" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1IPLTm-0006x6-KN@maggie.w3.org>

hi xiaoshu,

since LSID v1 is standardized via the OMG specification, it, has hilmar
has pointed out, is supported.

if the community (or a portion of) using LSID decides to modify it in a
way that is incompatible with that spec (it could be modified in such
way it would be backwards compatible) then the prefix should change from
'URN:LSID' to 'URN:LSID2' (or something along those lines) to
distinguish what protocols to apply.

if the URI begins 'URN:LSID' then a user should have every expectation
that the methods for resolution specified in the OMG spec apply.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hilmar Lapp [mailto:hlapp@duke.edu] 
> Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 8:40 AM
> To: wangxiao@musc.edu
> Cc: Miller, Michael D (Rosetta); Eric Jain; Ricardo Pereira; 
> public-semweb-lifesci; Sean Martin
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: identifier to use]
> On Aug 26, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
> > If cannot do it through OMG, maybe LSID should be moved out of  
> > OMG.  No matter what, there is one consensus that is LSID won't be  
> > supported as is.
> Consensus by whom? There are organizations that support it already,  
> such as TDWG, IPNI, uBio, to name a few.
> 	-hilmar
> -- 
> ===========================================================
> : Hilmar Lapp  -:-  Durham, NC  -:- hlapp at duke dot edu :
> ===========================================================
Received on Sunday, 26 August 2007 17:00:55 UTC

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