On Aug 24, 2011, at 8:01, Damian Steer <d.st...@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On 24 Aug 2011, at 15:40, David Wood wrote: > >> On Aug 24, 2011, at 2:44, Leigh Dodds <leigh.do...@talis.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 23 August 2011 15:17, Gannon Dick <gannon_d...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Either "Linked Data ecosystem" or "linked data Ecosystem" is a dangerously >>>> flawed paradigm, IMHO. You don't "improve" MeSH by >>>> flattening it, for example, it is what it is. Since CAS numbers are not a >>>> directed graph, an algorithmic transform to a URI (which *is* a >>>> directed graph) is risks the creation of a "new" irreconcilable taxonomy. >>>> For example, Nitrogen is ok to breathe and liquid Nitrogen is a >>>> not very practical way to chill wine. >>> >>> A URI isn't a directed graph. You can use them to build one by making >>> statements though. >>> >>> Setting aside any copyright issues, the CAS identifiers are useful >>> Natural Keys [1]. As they're well deployed, using them to create URIs >>> [2] is sensible >> >> Hi Leigh, >> >> Right. Unfortunately it is also illegal :/ > > For people like me who haven't paid attention, and were taken aback by that: > > "i. A User or Organization may include, without a license and without paying > a fee, up to 10,000 CAS Registry Numbers or CASRNs in a catalog, > web site, or other product for which there is no charge. *The following > attribution should be referenced or appear with the use of each > CASRN: CAS Registry Number is a Registered Trademark of the American Chemical > Society*" [1] > > So up to 10,000 is ok, but will include 10,000 attributions. Thanks. For what it is worth, the US EPA currently uses about 100,000. Regards, Dave > > Damian > > [1] <http://www.cas.org/legal/infopolicy.html#authorized>
