[Biojava-dev] RE: Flyweight Ontologies?

[Schreiber, Mark]

 >>I think the LSID people would point out at this point that
> >>LSIDs should 
> >>be permanent, and immutable, always resolving to the same (or 
> >>equivalent) entity. If we substitute URN for LSID, then I'm happy - 
> >>urn:biojava: or something - I think we're meant to use 
> >>urn:x-biojava as 
> >>we've not registered the biojava namespace.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >I'm not sure I follow. My intention would be that they do always 
> >resolve to the same object. Although I haven't looked too 
> much into the 
> >ontology package so I'm not sure if this is possible.
> >
> A particular LSID should resolve for all eternity to the same 
> entity, so 
> by using LSIDs for things like ontologies within a running 
> application, 
> we are implicitly contracting ourselves to have that data 
> available /for 
> ever/, even if it is working data or intermediate results, or 
> if we know 
> we will be changing the schema next week. URNs don't have 
> this restriction.
 
Wouldn't the core Ontology come under that categorie? If not, what form do you think the URN should take? Is there a need for each Term to know which Triple it belongs too or which Ontology?

- Mark
=======================================================================
Attention: The information contained in this message and/or attachments
from AgResearch Limited is intended only for the persons or entities
to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipients is prohibited by AgResearch
Limited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the
sender immediately.
=======================================================================