Hi - I'm new to this whole discussion, and I'm relatively naive so
please forgive me if what I'll say sounds terribly stupid. I also
apologize in advance if I seem to be reiterating points that have
long been settled - again I've just started to watch this forum
recently.
On Aug 21, 200
On Aug 21, 2007, at 1:39 PM, Eric Jain wrote:
Hilmar Lapp wrote:
It seems to me that domain-specific resolution systems are rather
a fact and we deal with them all the time.
We try to deal with it, but it's a pain, even though the number of
different systems I need to deal with is limited
Rachel,
Thanks for the well thought out e-mail. Would like to share a few thoughts...
I am trying to determine the over-arching use-case context for this Clinical
Observations Interoperability demo, in order to determine the appropriate CDISC
model for this pilot project. I think a broad co
Clinical Observations Interoperability Telcon
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/OntologyTaskForce/BIONTDSEDCM
Date and Time:
August 28th, Tuesday 11:00am - 12:00pm EDT
Agenda:
1. Presentation and Discussion of Use Case: Rachel Richesson
2. Presentation of CDISC Standards and A
Since this dialog is playing out on several fronts and I would like
the dissenting view well-articulated, I've taken the liberty to flesh
out the (previously empty) "HTTP URIs are not Without Expense" Wiki
(http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/HCLS_URI_matrix/HttpUrisAreExpensive).
I've moved it to a top
/me is supposed to be on vacation but can't seem to stay away from
mailing lists threads :)
Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
> The URN Bijian/Chimezie/and others are talking about, at least from the given
> use cases, is intended for a URI that has no associated transportation
> protocol whatsoever. Perha
On 21 Aug 2007, at 18:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eric wrote
I would like to follow up with Bijan suggestion and try to phrase
some of
the 'disputes and considerations' in terms of problem statement
and pro-con
solutions.
Maybe this is something we could add to the "Comparison matrix of
Hi Eric,
On 8/21/07, Eric Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My question (without knowing the true scale of what you had) was simply to
> see if a mechanism existed that told me "which molecules at OpenMolecules
> are URI-resolvable as RDF?".
There is no such list yet, but will put creating on
Eric wrote
> I would like to follow up with Bijan suggestion and try to phrase some of
> the 'disputes and considerations' in terms of problem statement and pro-con
> solutions.
Maybe this is something we could add to the "Comparison matrix of URI
proposals" Wiki page.
http://esw.w3.org/topic
What Michel is describing is also known as a 'reverse-indexer' (which is at the
heart of Google's fast retrievals). It stores all the reverse references made
to any URI X, so that by asking "what is all known about X", a list of all
links and annotations to it can be retrieved.
Some may recall
Bijan Parsia wrote:
I identified 3 problems, and this is only one. However, DNS doesn't
even do that *if I reuse your URIs*, or if I reuse your URI space
(which you may want me to do). E.g., I say
http://ex.org/#Bijan a Philosopher.
and you say
http://ex.org/#Bijan a PerfumeMaker.
I
Hilmar Lapp wrote:
It seems to me that domain-specific resolution systems are rather a fact
and we deal with them all the time.
We try to deal with it, but it's a pain, even though the number of
different systems I need to deal with is limited compared to someone who is
developing applicatio
Michel_Dumontier wrote:
The bigger problem, is how do we discover all the places that are making
statements about these non-web resources? While Bio2RDF lists a few
equivalent resources, will it maintain this list manually? Perhaps more
valuable is whether we entice Google to index our public t
Bijan Parsia wrote:
I suspect there's a difference in kind. E.g., "your website is down" is
really quite different than "You don't use HTTP uris."
From the point of view of someone who wants to resolve a URI, both cases
equal "it doesn't work", don't think it matters much what the excuse is.
Jonathan,
I would like to follow up with Bijan suggestion and try to phrase some of the
'disputes and considerations' in terms of problem statement and pro-con
solutions. Can you help organize this and make sure it gets added to the URI
Best Practices web site?
thanks,
Eric
- On 21 Aug 2
Egon,
My question (without knowing the true scale of what you had) was simply to see
if a mechanism existed that told me "which molecules at OpenMolecules are
URI-resolvable as RDF?".
I guess having a master list that points to each (your second option) would be
easiest to use. ANother way to
On 21 Aug 2007, at 11:55, Eric Jain wrote:
Bijan Parsia wrote:
This was addressed in this thread. HTTP uris create expectations
of dereferencing and are generally reported as bugs if they don't
dereference.
The thing is, quiet a few people seem to have the expectation that
they should b
Bijan Parsia wrote:
This was addressed in this thread. HTTP uris create expectations of
dereferencing and are generally reported as bugs if they don't dereference.
The thing is, quiet a few people seem to have the expectation that they
should be able to resolve anything, and I can tell you th
On 21 Aug 2007, at 10:12, Eric Jain wrote:
Bijan Parsia wrote:
I don't really see why HTTP uris are preferred, even as a default.
I think the argument is really simple:
Thanks!
1. If you do not want to dereference, I don't see why you would
care whether a URI is a URL or a URN or whatno
Bijan Parsia wrote:
I don't really see why HTTP uris are preferred, even as a default.
I think the argument is really simple:
1. If you do not want to dereference, I don't see why you would care
whether a URI is a URL or a URN or whatnot -- as long as it is unique.
2. The most practical so
Eric,
On 8/18/07, Egon Willighagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/17/07, Eric Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thanks for the pointer-- is there a list of all the molecules you store
> > something about?
>
> Not at this moment. That would be a rather lengthy RDF doc. The number
> of mol
21 matches
Mail list logo
