> From: Greg Tyrelle
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 6:42 AM
> [ . . . ]
> Do you want to make statements about the HTML representation of the
> database records in SGD ? I will assume this is not the case as these
> records already have URL identifiers. Or do you want to make
> statements about
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
Special Issue of the Journal of Biomedical Informatics on
Semantic BioMed Mashup
Guest Editors:
Kei-Hoi Cheung, Huajun Chen, Yimin Wang, Susie Stephens, Joanne Luciano, Vipul
Kashyap
Submission Deadline: August 31, 2007
Biomedical researchers need to be able to access all relevant data
I won't be able to attend on Monday, but have written up my current
status. See
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Meetings/
2007-08-27_Conference_Call/UriNoteStatus
Jonathan
On Aug 24, 2007, at 12:50 PM, Susie M Stephens wrote:
Hi Folks,
Here's the reminder for Monday's Bio
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
Hi Folks,
Here's the reminder for Monday's BioRDF telcon.
Cheers,
Susie
---
== Conference Details ==
* Date of Call: Monday August 27, 2007
* Time of Call: 11:00am Eastern Time
* Dial-In #: +1.617.761.6200 (Cambridge, MA)
* Dial-In #: +33.4.89.06.34.99 (Nice, France)
* Dial-In #: +44.11
Phillip Lord wrote:
I want an identifier that I can do one thing with and, preferably, one thing
only. Not 5.
And that would be?
(Drums rolling...)
Phillip Lord wrote:
No it isn't. http:// based URIs carry the assumption that they are
potentially resolvable by a defined protocol. URNs do not.
Yes, HTTP URIs are *potentially* resolvable.
So are URNs, except that the exact mechanism, if any, is less obvious...
Phillip Lord wrote:
Actually, LSIDs are built on top of HTTP. The initial step is web service and
http delivered. The second stage is multi-protocol which includes HTTP.
There are other schemes up for discussion, too, but regarding LSID: If it's
anyway built on top of HTTP, wouldn't it make
> "MS" == Matthias Samwald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MS> So you want to advertise what can be expected (or NOT expected) before
MS> the web client starts the retrieval process?
If we are to use http: based URIs for things which are never meant to be
retrieved (like ontology concepts),
--- Begin Message ---
Phillip Lord wrote:
I want an identifier that I can do one thing with and, preferably, one thing
only. Not 5. I am not suggesting that we put semantics into the identifiers
other than those semantics that we need for using the ID. So, your analogy is wrong.
What is exa
Phil wrote:
> To me it makes no sense to layer multi different protocols over a
> single identifier. Imagine I get an URI like
> http://uniprot.org/P4543, it could be
> 1) a meaningless concept identifier in an ontology
> 2) a URL which resolves to a pretty web page, via a single step
> process
> "XW" == Xiaoshu Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
XW> Phillip Lord wrote:
>> To me it makes no sense to layer multi different protocols over a single
>> identifier. Imagine I get an URI like http://uniprot.org/P4543, it could
>> be
>>
>> 1) a meaningless concept identifier in an
Phillip Lord wrote:
To me it makes no sense to layer multi different protocols over a single
identifier. Imagine I get an URI like http://uniprot.org/P4543, it could
be
1) a meaningless concept identifier in an ontology
2) a URL which resolves to a pretty web page, via a single step process
3)
> "DS" == "Booth, David (HP Software <- Boston)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
> writes:
>> From: Phillip Lord [ . . . ] I don't understand the desire to implement
>> everything using HTTP. Why call lots of things, which are actually
>> several protocols by a name which suggests that they a
> "EJ" == Eric Jain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
EJ> Phillip Lord wrote:
>> I don't understand the desire to implement everything using HTTP.
EJ> Likewise, I don't understand the desire to implement everything using
EJ> anything but HTTP :-) If there is an existing system that is
EJ
16 matches
Mail list logo
