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

Re: [Fwd: Re: identifier to use]

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:27:45 +0100
Message-ID: <46D29911.8020608@musc.edu>
To: Mark Wilkinson <markw@illuminae.com>
CC: Hilmar Lapp <hlapp@duke.edu>, "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>

Mark Wilkinson wrote:
> 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"

Probably because I was advocating use straight forward HTTP URI instead 
of LSID, you might think my "consensus" as not use LSID at all.  But I 
have only stressed that LSID needs "change" not be "abandoned" in order 
to make it more widely adopted.   Isn't this a consensus?

In all honesty, if anyone thinks that LSID in its status quo will become 
widely adopted, he or she must be living in fantasy because the history 
of LSID has showed its momentum is going down not up! 

Received on Monday, 27 August 2007 09:44:44 UTC

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