There were a few goals in mind when I thought of this pattern.<div><br></div><div>1) It makes it clear to processing services how to resolve the entity</div><div>2) It makes it more clear to data submitters what should go in that field</div>
<div>3) It allows end users who want to use the LSID system to do so without breaking non LSID aware systems.</div><div><br></div><div>The use of LSID makes it clear that this should be resolved using a LSID resolution system. </div>
<div><br></div><div>If we used URN it would still not be clear what &quot;kind&quot; of URN.</div><div><br></div><div>Also remember that just because their is a defined field does not mean you are obligated to use it.</div>
<div><br></div><div>We could also define a field <b>hasScientificNameURN</b> for non-resolvable URNs.</div><div><br></div><div>What I would like to avoid are cases where consuming agents including crawlers generate an error when they try</div>
<div>to resolve an LSID by assuming that it will work like proper semantic web URI&#39;s. In some cases, these system</div><div>stop processing when they encounter these errors.</div><div><br></div><div>- Pete<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Hilmar Lapp <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:hlapp@nescent.org">hlapp@nescent.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
On Oct 5, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Kevin Richards wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
hasScientificNameID = http resolvable URI<br>
hasScientificNameURN = LSID or other URN<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
If you define the convention for the value for hasScientificNameID to be a http-resolvable URI, then that obviates the need for the second, doesn&#39;t it? LSIDs, as much as Handles, DOIs and other non-HTTP URI identifiers either have already or will have to have proxy forms that make them resolvable HTTP URIs, or otherwise I would argue there is little use for them in the standard.<br>

<br>
What is the use-case that requires the LSID, but not other non-HTTP identifier schemes, to be in a separate element, if there is already an element that can be expected to have a resolvable  HTTP URI? What is special about LSIDs in this respect?<br>

<br>
        -hilmar<br><font color="#888888">
-- <br>
===========================================================<br>
: Hilmar Lapp  -:- Durham, NC -:- <a href="http://informatics.nescent.org" target="_blank">informatics.nescent.org</a> :<br>
===========================================================<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>----------------------------------------------------------------<br>Pete DeVries<br>Department of Entomology<br>University of Wisconsin - Madison<br>445 Russell Laboratories<br>
1630 Linden Drive<br>Madison, WI 53706<br><a href="http://www.taxonconcept.org/" target="_blank">TaxonConcept Knowledge Base</a> / <a href="http://lod.geospecies.org/" target="_blank">GeoSpecies Knowledge Base</a><br><a href="http://about.geospecies.org/" target="_blank">About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base</a><br>
------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</div>