Well, I don't know much at all about either of those, but I thought of
the semantic web stuff when I read the phrase '...how to find them by
names...'
In addition, Jim Frew suggested using UUIDs to identify servers; you
could extend that to any web resource or class of resource. Adding UUIDs
to web documents is appealing because it integrates nicely with things
like existing search engines.
James
PS. Hope I haven't trashed Jim's idea too much...
On Fri, 2004-06-25 at 14:16, John Caron wrote:
> I just got three indepenent emails within 2 hours, all on the subject of
> internet object identifiers. So im taking the liberty of cross-posting
> to everyone to enliven the discussion.
>
> 1. Steve Hankin points to Digital Object Identifiers (DOI)
>
> 2. Russ points to ARK (Archival Resource Key)
>
> 3. Beth points to a URN scheme called LSID from OMG (see
> http://www.omg.org/docs/dtc/04-05-01.pdf)
>
> There are probably 10 other important proposals in the same vein.
>
> It seems to points to the possibility that our community of "data
> providers" is getting ready to make some movement around these issues.
>
>
> *****************************************************************
> ** ONE
>
> Steve Hankin wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
> >
> >A thought/discussion question:
> >
> >There have been many discussions in OPeNDAP, NVODS, THREDDS
> >and IOOS/DMAC (as well as Digital Libraries, etc. ... the
> >list goes on) about how to recognize replicates of digital
> >datasets (a.k.a. "documents"), how to find them "by names",
> >how to be sensitive to version changes, etc.
> >
> >I'm wondering if someone in dods-tech land who has been
> >tracking this would like to offer some thoughts about where
> >these efforts are leading. More concretely: what should
> >OPeNDAP, THREDDS, NVODS and DMAC plan to hitch their wagon
> >to in this regard in order to invent a minimum of new
> >technology?
> >
> > - steve
> >
> >P.S. This two year old article provides some background
> >discussion if my question does not provide enough
> >http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FWE/is_9_6/ai_91913053
> >
> >--
> >
> >Steve Hankin, NOAA/PMEL -- Steven.C.Hankin at noaa.gov
> >7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070
> >ph. (206) 526-6080, FAX (206) 526-6744
> >
> >
> >
> *****************************************************************
> ** TWO
>
> Russ Rew wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >Roy Lowry wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>I am developing some ideas about how semantic web technology could be
> >>used to manage the problem of cross-dictionary ontologies based around
> >>the idea of users setting up RDF container resources holding references
> >>to the terms across dictionaries that the user regards as synonymous,
> >>which should get over the problem of different perspectives of 'fit for
> >>purpose'. We're going to thrash this one around as part of EnParDis.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I recently saw a presentation at the NASA 2004 Earth Science
> >Technology Conference by Rob Raskin (NASA JPL) of "Enabling Semantic
> >Interoperability for Earth Science Data":
> >
> > http://www.esto.nasa.gov/conferences/estc2004/papers/a5p1.pdf
> >
> >which discusses a similar approach and mentions CF.
> >
> >At the same conference, James Frew (UCSB) mentioned a name scheme he
> >is advocating in digital library work based on a server/authority/name
> >triple, that in turn is based on James Kunze's ARK IETF Draft for
> >persistent naming:
> >
> > http://www.cdlib.org/inside/diglib/ark/arkspec.pdf
> >
> >The latter contains discussion of some of the relevant issues, for
> >example:
> >
> > Names must be chosen with great care. Poorly chosen and managed
> > names will devastate any persistence strategy, and they do not
> > discriminate based on naming scheme. Whether a mistakenly re-
> > assigned identifier is a URN, DOI, PURL, URL, or ARK, the damage --
> > failed access -- is not mitigated more in one scheme than in another.
> > Conversely, properly managed names will go much further towards
> > safeguarding persistence than any choice of naming scheme or its
> > underlying protocols.
> >
> >but I can't say I agree with the specific recommendations, such as
> >
> > ... names that look more or less like numbers avoid common problems
> > that defeat persistence and international acceptance. The use of
> > digits is highly recommended, mixed in with non-vowel alphabetic
> > characters if compact names are desired.
> >
> >That's more or less the GRIB strategy of using numbers for everything
> >...
> >
> >--Russ
> >
> >_____________________________________________________________________
> >
> >Russ Rew UCAR Unidata Program
> >russ at unidata.ucar.edu http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/staff/russ
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >CF-metadata mailing list
> >CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> >http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> >
> >
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> Russ Rew UCAR Unidata Program
> russ at unidata.ucar.edu http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/staff/russ
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
> *****************************************************************
> ** THREE
>
> Beth A Plale wrote:
>
> 4. Adopt uniform naming scheme for data resources
> - for example, life sciences uses the LSID
> URN:LSID:authorityID:namespaceID:objectID:revisionID
>
> ex: URN:LSID:ebi.ac.uk:SWISS_PROT.accession:P343533:3
>
>
--
__________________________________________________________________________
James Gallagher The Distributed Oceanographic Data System
jgallagher at gso.uri.edu http://unidata.ucar.edu/packages/dods
Voice/Fax: 406.723.8663
Received on Fri Jun 25 2004 - 15:09:10 BST
