On Aug 24, 2011, at 8:01, Damian Steer wrote:
>
> On 24 Aug 2011, at 15:40, David Wood wrote:
>
>> On Aug 24, 2011, at 2:44, Leigh Dodds wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 23 August 2011 15:17, Gannon Dick wrote:
Either "Linked Data ecosystem" or "linked data Ecosystem" is a dangerously
>>>
On 24 Aug 2011, at 15:40, David Wood wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2011, at 2:44, Leigh Dodds wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 23 August 2011 15:17, Gannon Dick wrote:
>>> Either "Linked Data ecosystem" or "linked data Ecosystem" is a dangerously
>>> flawed paradigm, IMHO. You don't "improve" MeSH by
>>> fla
Hi,
On 24 August 2011 15:40, David Wood wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2011, at 2:44, Leigh Dodds wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 23 August 2011 15:17, Gannon Dick wrote:
>>> Either "Linked Data ecosystem" or "linked data Ecosystem" is a dangerously
>>> flawed paradigm, IMHO. You don't "improve" MeSH by
>>> fl
On Aug 24, 2011, at 2:44, Leigh Dodds wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 23 August 2011 15:17, Gannon Dick 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 num
Hi,
On 23 August 2011 15:17, Gannon Dick 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 transfo
--- On Tue, 8/23/11, Patrick Durusau wrote:
"The fact remains that even if we switched (miraculously) today to all
new URI identifiers, we will be accessing literature using prior
identifiers for a very long time. I suspect hundreds of years."
Somewhere around 1890, I think, the amount of publ
*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.
Just my 2 cents.
--- On Tue, 8/23/11, John Erickson wrote:
> From: John Erickson
> Subject: Re:
John
On 8/23/2011 9:05 AM, John Erickson wrote:
This is an important discussion that (I believe) foreshadows how
canonical identifiers are managed moving forward.
Both CAS and DUNS numbers are a good example. Consider the challenge
of linking EPA data; it's easy to create a list of toxic chemic
This is an important discussion that (I believe) foreshadows how
canonical identifiers are managed moving forward.
Both CAS and DUNS numbers are a good example. Consider the challenge
of linking EPA data; it's easy to create a list of toxic chemicals
that are common across many EPA datasets. Based
David,
On 8/22/2011 9:55 PM, David Booth wrote:
On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 20:27 -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote:
[ . . . ]
The use of CAS identifiers supports searching across vast domains of
*existing* literature. Not all, but most of it for the last 60 or so
years.
That is non-trivial and should no
On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 20:27 -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote:
[ . . . ]
> The use of CAS identifiers supports searching across vast domains of
> *existing* literature. Not all, but most of it for the last 60 or so
> years.
>
> That is non-trivial and should not be lightly discarded.
>
> BTW, your ob
David,
On 8/22/2011 7:39 PM, David Wood wrote:
Hi all,
On Aug 19, 2011, at 06:37, Patrick Durusau wrote:
Case in point, CAS, http://www.cas.org/. Coming up on 62 million
organic and inorganic substances given unique identifiers. What is
the incentive for any of their users/customers to switch
Hi all,
On Aug 19, 2011, at 06:37, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Case in point, CAS, http://www.cas.org/. Coming up on 62 million organic and
> inorganic substances given unique identifiers. What is the incentive for any
> of their users/customers to switch to Linked Data?
Well, for one thing, CAS (
13 matches
Mail list logo
