Well if we are going to change that, what's the limit on change? What
do we need to keep to retain the essential "LSID"ness ?
-Alan
On Jul 18, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Phillip Lord wrote:
The LSID protocol defines a protocol for resolving LSIDs some of
which uses
web services. If it were a brin
> "JR" == Jonathan Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JR> Well, to do a fair comparison of LSID URIs and HTTP URIs, you would have
JR> to take all the features you need, see how to best implement them in
JR> both contexts, and then make an overall assessment.
JR> What is your worry,
The LSID protocol defines a protocol for resolving LSIDs some of which uses
web services. If it were a bring problem, the WS definition of this API could
be replaced with something else, such as REST.
This is true with any API specification. In this case, the LSID API is not
that complex, so th
Well, to do a fair comparison of LSID URIs and HTTP URIs, you would
have to take all the features you need, see how to best implement them
in both contexts, and then make an overall assessment. I think I can
see now how to replicate the features I've heard stated as good about
LSIDs using a usefu
My apologies. I wasn't sure, which is why I asked. I just found your idea of
reproducing LSIDs advantages (and implicitly DOI) in http a little worrying.
I may have misread your email.
Phi
> "JR" == Jonathan Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JR> I never said LSID or DOIs shouldn't be
I'm intrigued by this remark. Phil, would it be possible to sketch
out how one could graft REST style services into LSID space?
-Alan
On Jul 16, 2007, at 8:22 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
The LSID use of web services should not really be seen as a
problem. Push comes to shove, even this part c
I never said LSID or DOIs shouldn't be used, and I don't see how my
message can be construed as saying this. I'm trying to be fair to all
solutions by talking about real technical requirements. If the W3C
HCLS SIG wants to recommend the use - even minting - of LSIDs, that's
fine with me. But I do
> "JR" == Jonathan Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JR> It may look like unnecessary replication, but it's not really, since
JR> we're already committed to the http: space and all the issues that LSID
JR> addressed are issues there as well.
JR> The same remarks apply to handles, DOIs
Let me try to review what's going on here, since Mark W and others
have reasonably asked why we're putting so much effort into the URI
question.
The W3C HCLS SIG was created according to a charter [1] that specifes
that the "The Interest Group will provide guideline[s] on how best to
identify HC
> "Mark" == Mark Wilkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> WSDL is a widely accepted W3C spec that is becoming increasingly
accepted
Mark> worldwide (and is, generally, automatically generated based on your
Mark> interface, so requires little or no manual construction), and which
so
10 matches
Mail list logo
