- From: Jonathan Rees <jonathan.rees@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:55:02 -0400
- To: "Eric Jain" <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
- Cc: public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
I wish I could not worry. Pat has put me at ease, so I've added his idea as a 5th option. But your implicit question is why do I care. The reason is that I want to win over various ornery parties to the application of the http: scheme to the semantic web, if it makes sense, or abandon it, if not. The ornery parties include some of the people on this list, as well as demanding groups such as scientists, physicians, librarians, and publishers. In my experience ornery people don't like to stand on a foundation of shaky, inconsistent specifications. http: has had two major losses this year - TDWG's adoption of LSID, and inchi's adoption of info: - and the case we make (should we choose to do so) to the next 100 groups facing this decision has to be rock solid, because they have crusty technical people too. On 10/11/07, Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch> wrote: > > Jonathan Rees wrote: > > http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Tasks/URI_Best_Practices/Recommendations/StatusOfHttpScheme > > 4 :-) > >
Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 03:55:20 UTC