- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:37:03 -0400
- To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
- Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Sean Martin <sjmm@us.ibm.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, www-tag@w3.org, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
In looking at ARK and comparing to LSID, I see the following issues: 1. We need some mechanism to globally assert that things like http://foobar.zaf.org/ark:/12025/654xz321 http://sneezy.dopey.com/ark:/12025/654xz321 ark:/12025/654xz321 are all the same thing. From an OWL DL perspective this is a bit tricky because we need to use sameAs, equivalentClass, or equivalentProperty depending on what the URI is used for. Or, we adopt a convention that within SW documents we always make the URI be ark:/12025/654xz321 (well, perhaps we need an extra slash - or convince the standard to make the ark look like a urn) and always have a property(e.g. resolvesTo) associated with it that adds the naming authority so we can resolve it. Outside SW documents, such as in publications, we always use the full URL. 2. To address the concern that http isn't necessarily a good transport layer for complex data, we allow that providers may opt to provide the metadata and policy, but return a machine and person understandable message that redirects to use the metadata instead, which is specified to include the sort of access service information that lsid provides for. 3. The paper doesn't mention qualifiers, but the current version of the specification does. We should perhaps agree on some conventions on the form of qualifiers so that we can use them to represent versions, where appropriate. -Alan
Received on Saturday, 29 July 2006 00:46:30 UTC