- From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:43:21 +0100
- To: "Jonathan Rees" <jonathan.rees@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
My apologies. I wasn't sure, which is why I asked. I just found your idea of reproducing LSIDs advantages (and implicitly DOI) in http a little worrying. I may have misread your email. Phi >>>>> "JR" == Jonathan Rees <jonathan.rees@gmail.com> writes: JR> I never said LSID or DOIs shouldn't be used, and I don't see how my JR> message can be construed as saying this. I'm trying to be fair to all JR> solutions by talking about real technical requirements. If the W3C HCLS JR> SIG wants to recommend the use - even minting - of LSIDs, that's fine JR> with me. But I don't think any decisions have been reached. JR> LSID users are committed to using HTTP URIs. For example, anyone who JR> uses both LSID and RDF is committed to using the HTTP URI JR> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type. JR> Jonathan JR> On 7/16/07, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>>>> "JR" == Jonathan Rees <jonathan.rees@gmail.com> writes: >> JR> It may look like unnecessary replication, but it's not really, since JR> we're already committed to the http: space and all the issues that LSID JR> addressed are issues there as well. >> JR> The same remarks apply to handles, DOIs in particular. >> >> >> Are you suggesting that DOIs shouldn't be used either? >> >> Phil >> -- Phillip Lord, Phone: +44 (0) 191 222 7827 Lecturer in Bioinformatics, Email: phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk School of Computing Science, http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/phillip.lord Claremont Tower Room 909, skype: russet_apples Newcastle University, NE1 7RU
Received on Monday, 16 July 2007 16:43:47 UTC