- From: Bruno Harbulot <Bruno.Harbulot@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:25:16 +0100
- To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Hello, I've certainly missed parts of the debate regarding LSID, but I don't understand what they add to 'http' URIs. How would 'http' URIs prevent linking to the greater world and data held elsewhere? I think this document makes the case for 'http' URIs better than I would: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50 The problem with 'urn:lsid:' (or any other custom URI prefix) is that it is not easily generalisable. It seems unrealistic to have each and every possible project ask for the registration of a label (life science, physics, chemistry, ... where to stop? Who has authority on the whole of "life science"?). In contrast, 'http' URIs (not that it has anything to do with the HTTP protocol), give the opportunity to make this extensible, as well as provide de facto authority on this type of URI. I can see two ways to go about this: 1/ The LSID community as a whole chooses to have a domain name (say lifesciencecommunity.net). In this case 'urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:30000959-2' could work very well as 'http://id.lifesciencecommunity.net/ipni.org:names:30000959-2'. There is no loss compared with the 'urn:lsid' prefix. Worries about the authority could be addressed by having whoever owns lifesciencecommunity.net establish a charter saying that the first part after the slash (in this example 'ipni.org') should be reserved for the "sub-authority" as part of the LSID community. 2/ A less regulated approach where knowing the URI is an LSID would be less obvious: leaving each institution that was an authority in the 'urn:lsid' scheme define its own "host name", for example lsid.mygrid.info, lsid.ipni.org. In this case, the example above could be equivalent to 'http://lsid.ipni.org/names:30000959-2'. Dealing with legacy LSIDs should not be a major problem, since it could be easy to implement a resolver to convert LSIDs to and from something like 'http://id.lifesciencecommunity.net/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:30000959-2', for example. Having an actual "default" resolver under the form of an HTTP server becomes an accessory matter which can however be solved rather easily. This could be handy if some of these LSID URIs where included in documents retrieved with a web browser. The user-agents would not need to be extended to learn a new prefix, but could just use HTTP as they know it. Best wishes, Bruno.
Received on Monday, 16 July 2007 03:04:00 UTC