Thanks. I guess I thought it was obvious, but nothing seems to be in
this territory. I added
7. likelihood of adoption by uncommitted HCLS members [added 8/25]
8. ease of adoption [added 8/25]
About the http://purl.org/commons/ URIs, I think it would be wrong to
interpret their non-adoption as a sign of community resistance. I
have felt it would be a conflict of interest to promote them much in
advance of HCLS recommendations on the subject, so it's possible that
if few others are using them it's only because they haven't been
recommended.
The purl.org/commons system was a unilateral Science Commons
experiment that was needed for the Banff demo, and the intent was
always to review the design before asking anyone else to adopt it.
That is just what we're doing now. If it looks like those URIs will
work for HCLS, then we'll say so in the recommendations note. If they
need to be relocated or redesigned, that's fine too. Better to do
that now than after they're widely deployed.
Jonathan
On Aug 25, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Eric Jain wrote:
Jonathan Rees wrote:
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Meetings/
2007-08-27_Conference_Call/UriNoteStatus
One more criteria that may be worth adding:
7. feasability - There is no point coming up with advice that the
HCLS isn't even able or willing to follow in it's own projects.
(I'm thinking about the -- potentially very useful -- effort that
was started with the goal of creating usable URIs for databases
that don't provide any.)
