Re: what would change for me?

Peter, Comments below... At 05:38 PM 10/31/2007, Peter Ansell wrote: The ARK project has relatively easy subject areas in mind is possibly what I am concerned about. By that I mean that they do not assume versioning will occur on the objects. Once one assigns a tag to a physical object or obs

Re: what would change for me?

Hi, My biggest preferences are basically that: * HTTP GET can be used to retrieve metadata; AND, * that the metadata identifier be the default for identifiers used as URI's on other documents (if people are worried that they won't be able to iterpret their documents then XSLT can be used to trans

Re: what would change for me?

Hi, The following are my comments about the TNS draft at http://sw.neurocommons.org/2007/uri-note/ and Major remaining trouble spots from http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Tasks/URI_Best_Practices/Recommendations To begin with, from the question about "Attitude Toward Nonlocators"

Re: what would change for me?

The ARK project has relatively easy subject areas in mind is possibly what I am concerned about. By that I mean that they do not assume versioning will occur on the objects. Once one assigns a tag to a physical object or observation then it will not change due to the physically fixed status of the

Re: what would change for me?

On Oct 23, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Marc-Alexandre Nolin wrote: Currently, I'm waiting for the publication of Jonathan URI recommendation to add it to the Bio2RDF system. Adding the support to the standardization effort doesn't mean to throw away the previous working system :) Marc-Alexandre I appr

Re: what would change for me?

On 24/10/2007, Jonathan Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Oct 21, 2007, at 7:44 PM, Peter Ansell wrote: > After I do this, I > would be grateful if you would recast your message above as proposed > recommendations (what you would do if others would) that meet the > document requirements. > > B

Re: what would change for me? -> revised meta-requirements

OK, thanks to your stimulus I've reworked the recommendations to be more clear about what I mean by a URI Note recommendations document. I've tried to provide more motivation and examples of answers to each question. I always omit something important when I do things like this, so please

Re: what would change for me?

Hi, I'm one of Bio2RDF maintainer. While we still strongly believe in HTTP URI with a REST nomenclature and a GET retrieval, we also believe that some kind of standardization about how URIs should be created would be beneficial for the health care and life science domain. These recommendations ar

Re: what would change for me?

First let me thank you for taking a serious look at the requirements. I appreciate it. On Oct 21, 2007, at 7:44 PM, Peter Ansell wrote: Hi all, I have been using the Bio2Rdf markup system and I personally do not see what all the fuss is about but there must be something so here are my opin

Re: what would change for me?

Peter Ansell wrote: Not sure what the difficulties are here. Agreeing on what the best practices are -- if any? :-) Everyone has their "personally, I would stick with x"s. I think the idea was to document the arguments (any maybe even reach some conclusions), in order to avoid repetitive di

what would change for me?

Hi all, I have been using the Bio2Rdf markup system and I personally do not see what all the fuss is about but there must be something so here are my opinions based solely on the requirements document http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Tasks/URI_Best_Practices/Recommendations/Require