I agree, consistent use of terms makes life easier for machines and for
humans too when the terms have been agreed on, learned, and understood.
Unfortunately, this takes a lot of effort and dedication from the
humans. Learning a whole ontology before anything can be done is a bit
like reading
Tim --
At 10:54 AM 8/21/2006 -0400, you wrote:
Machine processing of information relies on
consistent usage of terms. You can't reuse information for
new problems when its use requires human intervention to disambiguate
it.
But, perhaps ontologies can help in mapping various human usages
Yes, indeed. Machine processing of information relies on
consistent usage of terms. You can't reuse information for
new problems when its use requires human intervention to disambiguate
it.
Tim Berners-Lee
On Aug 10, 2006, at 21:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting "Miller, Michael D (Ro
2006 6:55 PM
> To: Miller, Michael D (Rosetta)
> Cc: Alan Ruttenberg; Mark Wilkinson;
> public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: A precedent suggesting a compromise for the
> SWHCLS IG Best Practices (ARK)
>
>
> Quoting "Miller, Michael D (Rosetta)&quo
Quoting "Miller, Michael D (Rosetta)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
You're correct here but it is the state of the art. Interestingly
enough, I've found that in general the biology-based scientists and
investigators are not all that bothered by this confusion and despite
the confusion seem to make thei
Alan Ruttenberg
> Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 7:08 PM
> To: Mark Wilkinson
> Cc: Alan Ruttenberg; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sean Martin; Henry S. Thompson;
> Phillip Lord; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dan Connolly
> Subject: Re: A precedent suggesting a compromise
Mark wrote exactly what I would have (thanks :) Note
the version information in an LSID is optional but encouraged when appropriate.
Mark describes one common scenario, where one uses an LSID (or http URI)
as a "concept" (meta-data only) that in turn has LSID URIs that
name actual bytes represent
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
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
In looking at ARK and comparing to LSID, I see the following issues:
1. We need some mechanism to globally assert that things like
http://foobar.zaf.org/ark:/12025/654xz321
http://sneezy.dopey.com/ark:/12025/654xz321
ark:/12025/654xz321
are all the same thing. From an OWL DL perspective this i
On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 18:01 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sean Martin writes:
>
> > This is a great paper. Many thanks for pointing to it. I wish I had
> > known of it earlier.
http://www.cdlib.org/inside/diglib/ark/arkcdl.pdf
Yes, that is interesting. Where did you find it, Henry?
hmm...
> You may well be correct in your thinking that
a similar approach
> offers a good compromise. In fact to my mind
it may actually leave
> everyone with something that is significantly
stronger than what we
> have currently and the fact is that the software
required to support
> it already exist
08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Henry S. Thompson), Phillip Lord
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED], (bcc: Noah
Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
Subject: Re: A precedent suggesting a compromise for the
SWHCLS IG Best Practices
Sean
My feeling is that this suggestion is far more likely to succeed than
the second one. The reason for this is that there is no real "center"
to the Life Sciences (there are actually many and they don't always
get on!) - and consequently there might be significant difficulty in
establishin
Hello Henry,
> HST> With respect to the upcoming W3C
Semantic Web Health Care and
> HST> Life Sciences Interest Group f2f
discussion of LSIDs, I wonder
> HST> if you might think seriously about
adopting an approach similar
> HST> to that used by the ARK (Archival
Resource Key) naming sche
> "HST" == Henry S Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
HST> With respect to the upcoming W3C Semantic Web Health Care and
HST> Life Sciences Interest Group f2f discussion of LSIDs, I wonder
HST> if you might think seriously about adopting an approach similar
HST> to that used by the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
With respect to the upcoming W3C Semantic Web Health Care and Life
Sciences Interest Group f2f discussion of LSIDs, I wonder if you might
think seriously about adopting an approach similar to that used by the
ARK (Archival Resource Key) naming scheme
18 matches
Mail list logo
