- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:45:23 -0400
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: Mark Wilkinson <markw@illuminae.com>, "public-semweb-lifesci hcls" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, info@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, olivier@nlm.nih.gov
I think this is the thread: Proposal for standard NCBI database URI -Alan On Sep 11, 2007, at 9:16 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote: > I can't find any discussion of NCBI URLs from May 2006 (the 5/9/06 > messages from you seem to be about something a bit more glorious) > but the topic was raised at the 5/18/06 teleconference, which I > didn't attend: > http://www.w3.org/mid/000f01c67aa3$8caf1460$9c01a8c0@TERANET > Olivier offered to help out, but there was no action item, so the > issue was probably forgotten. > > To be clear, I think NCBI created these URLs so that people could > program against them with long-term assurance against 404 risk. > They have nothing particularly to do with the semantic web. But > there is no reason we can't piggyback, if the names suit our > purposes (consistent, accessible, well-defined), or encourage NCBI > to develop the idea a bit further, if they don't. > > To answer Eric N's question, the paper I was looking at was "The > Life Sciences Semantic Web is Full of Creeps!" published June 2006, > but it doesn't give a direct link to view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. I > wanted to know what Mark was talking about regarding NCBI, and > found the view site by searching Google for "ncbi stable url". > Whether view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov is what he meant is another story. > > Jonathan > > On Sep 10, 2007, at 6:53 PM, Mark Wilkinson wrote: > >> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:30:27 -0700, Alan Ruttenberg >> <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Probably worth finding out who is responsible and asking >>> whether there is any intention that is be used. >> >> The first time I recall this being discussed was on(this)-list >> between me, Alan and Larry Hunter... in my mailbox it is the 9th >> of May, 2006. Maybe someone has a more complete record of the >> conversation? >
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2007 14:45:34 UTC