Hilmar Lapp wrote:
I just don't understand the relevance the current usage stats of DOIs in
UniProt queries should have for how and in which ways they may be used
in the Semantic Web in 3 years from now.
I understood that the apparent success of the DOI system was being used as
an argument to support the fact that having specialized schemes is not a
problem? I can only speculate from my little corner; if someone has done a
more broad survey that would be quite interesting. I do think it's worth
looking at what has worked well, and what worked less well. Even if the
future ends up being all different, we don't want to repeat past mistakes!
Technology may change, but I'm less optimistic about people :-)
That's a lot of hand-waving there, and quite frankly I'd be depressed if
that were all to hope for. However, the good news is that there is an
increasing number of digital archive projects whose goal is long-term
preservation of data to prevent it from disappearing.
That's exactly what I'm talking about.
> These archives
> will all need to use opaque identifiers to track relationships,
> provenance, versions, and other metadata.
The only digital archive project I'm vaguely familiar with is the Internet
Archive project, and that seems to relies on URLs. If someone has some
insight into any of the other projects (especially how they can or can't
handle different identifier schemes), that would be *really* interesting!
Otherwise, assuming that there will be some unspecified archive projects
that will benefit from URI scheme x is indeed just a lot of hand-waving ;-)
