On Jul 25, 2006, at 12:55 PM, Phillip Lord wrote:
But if the file you are referencing is, say 5Tb, then it doesn't work
in a browser at all. With LSID's on the other hand, you may get back a
choice of methods to access the data, including one which can cope
with 5Tb of data.
Could this specif
Excellent response! I 95% heartedly agree (all but the "I stand by
LSIDS part" :)
I will note however that whenever there are versions of something,
there tends to some concept of the thing that they are versions of.
So even though there are versions of the sequence, there ought to
stil
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:46:21 -0700, Alan Ruttenberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One of the things that I have has a concern over with LSIDs is what to
do with versioned identifiers.
Sometimes it is important to have the version - like when you are doing
some sequence based analysis and y
Donald's solution feels a little circular. The interpretation of
these relations still need a formal specification, which OWL would do
nicely for, but then OWL already defines similar constructs.
I think the "one true ontology" idea fails simply through open world
semantics; I'm not sure
Eric,
What you call "covering" below seems particularly important. In my view,
there can never be one true ontology, especially in science (unless we're
done and have reached complete knowledge...if that's possible). You present
an interesting solution...
Don
Donald Doherty, Ph.D.
Brainstage Re
Dear HCLSIG list members,Eric has asked the W3C SW HCLSIG list admin to remove that mistaken post from the archive.I respectfully request if you respond to the content in the original post, please do not embed that post in its entirety in your email, so as to avoid adding it back to the list. Sele
On Jul 28, 2006, at 7:37 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
3. The paper doesn't mention qualifiers, but the current version of
the specification does. We should perhaps agree on some conventions
on the form of qualifiers so that we can use them to represent
versions, where appropriate.
BTW, so
