Hi Alan,
I meant to refer to the portion of the identifier 'GO#0000001' as in the
example below with respect to OWL ontologies. My understanding is that
when building an ontology using Protege/OWL, it would be best to use
GO_0000001 in the rdf:ID field (perhaps that is not correct?). When using
OBO-Edit, the idspace can be set separately and the unique numeric
identifiers are generated with code built into the editor. There is a
plugin to generate unique identifiers for Protege/OWL that was obtained
in response to a post to the Protege/OWL list and has since been modified
to allow one to set the idspace as well as part of the identifier that is
in the rdf:ID field. Since reading your post to the obo-format list I'll
check this out with SWOOP.
Trish
What was the specifics of the argument for alphanumeric versus numeric
identifiers?
If you check out the go-format list I recently sent some examples that
use identifiers of the form
http://www.bioontologies.org/2006/02/obo/GO#0000001
Details are in
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=24431577
BTW, all of them are alphanumeric in the sense that they are URIs. But a
little care needs to be taken because of qnames, etc. used in xml.
Nothing that can't be worked around in a reasonable manner.
