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

RE: [Fwd: Re: identifier to use]

From: Eric Neumann <eneumann@teranode.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:51:22 -0400
Message-ID: <E7092F10DB73FA43AE0E59F2DCDAA6360A9238@MI8NYCMAIL04.Mi8.com>
To: "Mark Wilkinson" <markw@illuminae.com>, "Hilmar Lapp" <hlapp@duke.edu>, wangxiao@musc.edu
cc: "Miller, Michael D (Rosetta)" <Michael_Miller@rosettabio.com>, "Eric Jain" <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>, "Ricardo Pereira" <ricardo@tdwg.org>, "public-semweb-lifesci" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "Sean Martin" <sjmm@us.ibm.com>

In an attempt to modulate the tone a bit, it's clear that with such a large and complex group of people and communities, many who had not been part of earlier OMG/I3C discussions are not aware of all the details of what had been discussed, proposed, and recommended. Having been a LSR-OMG chair many years ago, I know what it takes to put RFPs through DTC, PTC, and AB mechanisms at OMG. A lot of careful technical forethought and agreeing has to go in to it... 

At the same time, many groups in biological data and identifier discussions are still getting up to speed what is meant by web uniqueness and resolution within the W3C world. It's always easier to respond to messages than to review the massive amount of technical papers on the subject (I think simple tech/usage summaries are often lacking). But this seems to lead to a lot of earlier email discussions coming up again and again, i.e., info equilibration. As well as the side effect of evoking emotions when not intended...

My guess is all sides here can provide an 80-90% technical solution to the main set of data issues raised. That is not the main point of our discussions though. In going forwards we need to also think about learning from past attempts (successes and partial successes), what factors help things "catch on" more quickly and are easy to implement/adopt, and where do data providers and consumers (including the non-informatics people) want to be in 2-5 years? I think we will be capturing most of these shortly, and I look forwards to lots of useable contributions.

I am not weighing in on any specific side here, but do hope to see an outcome that is acceptable by most people AND offers the largest potential for success, i.e., improves the quality of science and medicine at a global scale.

Remember, before the web took off in the mid-90's, many pointed to the limitations of other hyptext systems to why a global network of documents would never succeed... past does not imply the future!


-----Original Message-----
From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org on behalf of Mark Wilkinson
Sent: Sun 8/26/2007 2:46 PM
To: Hilmar Lapp; 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 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 08:40:26 -0700, Hilmar Lapp <hlapp@duke.edu> 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.

I think "consensus" here means "me and the people who agree with me"

Received on Sunday, 26 August 2007 19:52:01 UTC

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