On 08/05/2011, at 6:12 AM, Steve wrote:
The second question is a little trickier. The main purpose that I would want to use this for is to enable the use of GUIDs. Using GUIDs rather than local IDs seems to be considered a better practice (or at least an allowed practice) in both the DwC term descriptions (e.g.
Not sure if this is relevant at all, but rfc 4122 (http://www.iana.org/go/rfc4122) defines a urn namespace for uuids (=guids).
If the problem is that guids "look like" local identifiers because they are not URIs, a correct way to convert a GUID into a URI is by prefixing it with "urn:uuid:" . Note that there is no resolution service or anything like that for these urns - it's just a semweb-compatible namespace.
(I think that it would be reasonable, for any LSID that just uses a guid as the objectid (and does not have a version component), to declare it to be owl:sameas the uuid urn. heck - same thing applies to linkedData http: URIs if a GUID alone potentially identifies the resource. After all - the whole point is that these things should not collide. Admittedly, it's a bit of a "solution looking for a problem". I'm not sure what the utility of doing this would be.)
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.