Hello all,
The biodiversity informatics community, which I'm a member of, were
faced with the same issues when we decided to adopt LSID.
After much discussion, we extended the work from Sean Marting and
others regarding LSID HTTP proxies and devised a set of recommendations
to make LSID more interoperable with the Web (and the Semantic Web). The
recommendations are at:
http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/GUID/LsidHttpProxyUsageRecommendation
With those recommendations, we believe we reached a compromise in
which we let standard Web clients consume and navigate through networks
of objects identified by LSIDs, while retaining what we believe are
benefits of LSID.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Ricardo Pereira
Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG)
Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
I am not sure which part of LSID that you prefer? If you prefer the
resolution protocol? I think that has been summarized by the TAG at
"http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50.xml";. Or if you
prefer the naming convention? If so, that is fine but please use a
straight-forward mapping to HTTP. I thought this has been discussed a
long time ago and Sean Martin has put a server somewhere for the
LSID-HTTP mapping. I don't know why the question is popped up again.
